Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Access to Public Buildings (Disabled People)

1. Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further steps he is now taking to encourage provision to be made for assisting the disabled in the design and construction of public buildings.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am considering revising and republishing the pamphlet "Access to Public Buildings for the Disabled" which was issued in

1965. In addition, at the invitation of the Central Council for the Disabled, I have recently nominated a member of my staff to help in the work of the Council's Accessibility Panel. I am reviewing further ways in which my Ministry could help.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to hear of the Minister's interest in this. Has he accepted the British Standards Institution's Code of Practice No. 96 on access to buildings for the disabled, and is he stipulating that it should be observed in the design and construction of buildings for which he is responsible?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. The liaison between ourselves and the Central Council is, as I have just said, very close indeed. My Department has set an example in our own design work, and there is close collaboration between my Ministry, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Ministry of Health. I accept from the hon. Gentleman the implication that we have to do much more for the needs of the disabled.

Construction Industry (Metrication)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what machinery exists for liaison between his Ministry, the Ministries of Housing and Local Government, Technology, and Education and Science for the implementation of metrication in the construction industry; what representations he has received from the industry on the rate


of progress being made; and if he will list the practical experts with day-to-day knowledge of the production and financial problems who are being consulted.

Mr. Mellish: Metrication in the construction industry is a very large subject and a number of committees exist through which Departments exchange information and co-ordinate their decisions. I understand that progress so far is satisfactory, but if the hon. Member has any particular point in mind I should be glad to look into it. As regards consultation with the industry, I have set up a special working party of my National Consultative Council to identify and consider any specific difficulties that may arise.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that for metrication to work in the construction industry the change-over has to be made at the same time in various other industries, such as engineering, furniture, the manufacture of washing machines, cookers, and so on, in order that these will fit into houses designed for the metric units? Has he seen the proposal by the building industry for a metrication board to co-ordinate all these fields?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. The hon. Member must clearly understand that the construction industry has set the lead here. One industry had to take the initiative, and this industry has done it. In consultation with my own machinery we have ensured that the difficulties arising from their leadership are known and understood and that Government Departments will back them up. The consultation is very good indeed.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister noticed that in the second last line of the Question practical experts are referred to? Scotland has a high proportion of such practical experts but does not get a high proportion of the work involved. Will my right hon. Friend look into this with a view to seeing that Scotland gets fair play?

Mr. Mellish: I do not know the nationality of the experts but, as far as I know, those we have are as good as one can possibly get, and I have no doubt that there are some Scots among them.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Since the Standing Committee on Metrication positively recommended the setting up of a metrication board many weeks ago, why the

delay, especially as I understand it will cost virtually nothing?

Mr. Mellish: The metrication board is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that the construction industry took the lead. It follows from what they are doing that a number of things will have to fall into a pattern, if that lead is to become worthwhile. Arising from that, I have set up machinery following the implications of this lead. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the metrication board and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be saying something about that.

Approved Contractors

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are the considerations which have caused the removal of construction firms, without their knowledge, from his Department's approved lists.

Mr. Mellish: Any firm wishing to be added to my Ministry's list of approved contractors will be asked to present details of work recently done, and to submit to technical inspection and financial viability.
Construction firms are removed from my Ministry's lists of approved contractors only when confidence is lost in them on grounds of unreliability, bad performance or financial instability. In these cases the firm will have been informed.

Mr. Campbell: Why have some firms which have been dropped from the list not been informed? This would obviate misunderstandings about their capabilities and about the type of work involved.

Mr. Mellish: My experience of my contracts division is that it has a very honourable record. I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind a particular firm. I will not go into detail, except to say that I understand it remains on our list for general surfacing work but has not been included in the small specialist list for contracts for airfield paving work which is highly specialised. I have today written to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Import Substitution

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made since sterling devaluation, eight months ago, in imports


substitution, by British produced building and construction materials; and what is his estimate of the value of such imported materials saved by British substitution, pro rata to a full year, since devaluation.

Mr. Mellish: For many years my Department has encouraged the use of home-produced materials whenever it was practicable and economic. The Construction Materials Group of the E.D.C.s for Building and Civil Engineering has considered the hon. Member's suggestion made in his Question to me on 11th March, and the building centres have volunteered to draw particular attention to new British building materials in their monthly list of new materials. The Construction Materials Group is also drawing the attention of architects to the need to pay close attention to competitive British materials in specifications.
No statistics are available to provide a meaningful estimate of import savings.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Prime Minister's statement on 16th January last, which laid heavy emphasis on import substitution, much greater urgency ought to have been imparted to this substitution programme? Cannot he translate into statistical reality by the beginning of next year the economies effected in this programme to date?

Mr. Mellish: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he over-simplifies everything. It is not like this, or as simple as he suggests. First of all, one has to get the agreement of the professions involved; for example, the architects. One has to take into consideration our trading partners in E.F.T.A. It is not something which is done overnight. We are trying to get the good-will of the industry. I think that we have it, but time will tell. If it is a matter of providing information about how much we have been able to save, I will engage some more civil servants to get the information.

Housing (Building Materials)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in relation to 1969, how many houses in the aggregation he has advised producers of building materials, notably bricks, to budget for; what increase this represents in 1968, per centum and ad valorem; and what further steps he plans to take in 1969 to

encourage the use of British-produced building materials.

Mr. Mellish: The Forecasting Committee of the E.D.C.s for Building and Civil Engineering estimated that the number of houses started in Great Britain in 1969 will be between 415,000 and 420,000. The Government think that this is a reasonable estimate for planning purposes. It represents practically no percentage change on the number of houses likely to be started in 1968, although there may be a marginal increase in the cost, owing to rising standards. I shall continue to urge designers and contractors to use British-produced materials where these are competitive with imported materials.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is this not a splendid opportunity comparable to the saving in imported foodstuffs, for example, to save in imports for the building and construction industries, notably with timber, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something more substantial than he has done already without resort to the bureaucracy?

Mr. Mellish: I do not know what all that means. Hardwood, for example, is giving way to such finishes as linoleum, vinyl, and where appropriate, asphalt. Chipboard is being used increasingly as a substitute for solid timber in flooring. The whole emphasis of the industry is moving away from that which we have to import to substitutes which are already available in this country but it does not happen overnight, and the industry must be given a chance to work it out.

Caernarvon Castle (Investiture of Prince of Wales)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his estimate of the total expenditure to be incurred at Caernarvon Castle for the investiture of the Prince of Wales; what alternations are to be made at the castle; what temporary buildings are to b6 erected; and at what cost.

Mr. Mellish: I expect the net cost of the work for which I am responsible to be about £55,000.
No alterations will be made to the castle itself, nor will any temporary buildings be erected inside the castle.

Mr. Hughes: Is this in addition to the £200,000 about which we have heard already? Would it not be far better to put the money into a housing scheme or schools rather than spend it on temporary buildings intended for something which will last only a couple of hours?

Mr. Mellish: That is a very unfair criticism. The £55,000 to which I have referred is part of the global sum already given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and my hon. Friend should recognise that it is almost impossible to estimate how much money will come into Wales as a result of the hundreds of thousands of people who will wish to see this very remarkable ceremony. In our whole design with regard to Caernarvon Castle, we have in mind that it will probably be viewed by something like 400 million people throughout the world. I think that it is a very worthwhile ceremony.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is the Minister aware that this type of Question so often put down by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and many of his hon. Friends causes great offence to the Royal Family and the public in general, who find these comments unacceptable?

Mr. Mellish: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), he has every right to question any expenditure. He has a viewpoint which he has always had the courage to express. However, in this matter, I think that we shall get wonderful value for the money involved. I might mention, too, that some of the chairs that we shall make will be sold at a profit.

Buckingham Palace Area (Pedestrians)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how the arrangements for enabling pedestrians, especially sightseers, to cross the road in the neighbourhood of Buckingham Palace are working; and if there have been any accidents in recent months.

Mr. Mellish: Considering the crowds that assemble in this area, particularly at the time of the Changing of the Guard,

the arrangements are working reasonably satisfactorily. Three pedestrians were slightly injured in accidents there during the first six months of this year.

Sir R. Russell: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and the assurance that it has given. However, is he aware that there is often a lot of confusion between pedestrians and motorists as to who has the right of way, there being no pedestrian crossings? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Mellish: I am on record as saying that I am trying to avoid pedestrian crossings and traffic signals anywhere in the vicinity of the parks. I have made a statement today that, starting from next Sunday, that part of the Mall from Horse Guards Approach Road to Queen Victoria Memorial Gardens, will be closed to vehicles between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sundays, and will be made a pedestrian precinct.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Metropolitan Police are very good on these occasions in controlling the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at these points so that there is a continuous flow all the time, despite the congregation of considerable crowds?

Mr. Mellish: I think that that is fair.

Government Office Accommodation

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the area of Government office requirements in 1969; and how this compares with 1965.

Mr. Mellish: Something over 40 million sq. ft. in 1969, compared with about 35 million sq. ft. in 1965.

Mr. Costain: Is not this a very large increase? Has the Minister no control over other Government Departments? Is he satisfied that the accommodation is satisfactory, anyway?

Mr. Mellish: That is the whole point. The conditions in which many of our civil servants live can only be described as conditions of squalor. That has been the position for years, and we are trying to improve conditions, some of which would not be tolerated under our own Acts of Parliament. It is the policy of


the Government that there should be no net increase in the total number of civil servants this year.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give the percentage saving represented by the rents which his Department pays for office space in the provinces compared with rents for similar accommodation in London.

Mr. Mellish: The average rent of office accommodation held on lease by my Department is about 60 per cent. lower in the provinces than in London. For new hirings the difference is nearer 70 per cent.

Mr. Costain: Does not this information show the necessity to get more Government Departments out of London? Would the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about how he intends to do this?

Mr. Mellish: We have an extremely good reoord on that, compared with the record of the previous Government. During the last five years, something like 9,000 Government office jobs have been dispersed from London. On present plans, the figure will increase by another 15,000. In this time, offices employing over 5,000 staff on new Government work have been opened outside London, and that figure will go up to 10,000.

Mann Committee's Reports

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he has now completed his discussions with the trade unions on the Mann Committee Report; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: There have been three Reports by the Mann Committee. Discussions with the trade unions on the 1st Report, which dealt mainly with the methods of executing maintenance and minor works by contract, were concluded some time ago.
Discussions with the trade unions on the 2nd Report have just commenced, and are continuing. None have yet taken place on the 3rd Report.
I am unable to make a statement at this stage of the discussions.

Mr. Dance: There seems to have been an awful lot of delay here. Can the Minister say what proportion of the maintenance work of his Deparament will in future be continually done by direct labour?

Mr. Mellish: As a matter of fact, the proportions of maintenance work done by direct labour and contract labour are about 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. This concerns the whole Department and many thousands of staff. As I see my job, it is first to improve management, because direct labour cannot be complained about unless management is right. I am also having discussions with the trade unions.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the refund to contractors engaged on public sector contracts of the Selective Employment Tax as from September, 1968.

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from builders regarding the refund of Selective Employment Tax to those contractors who engaged in a public contract after 4th May, 1966, but before the introduction of Supplementary Condition No. 62 in CCC/Wks/1 in November, 1967 and new Clause 31 in the Royal Institute of British Architects Form of Contract in October, 1967 and whose contracts will continue after 2nd September, 1968; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Mellish: I have received representations from many sources that concessions should be made on construction contracts for the public sector where those contracts did not include provisions to enable contractors to reclaim the extra cost of the increased rate of Selective Employment Tax which will become operative in September next. The Government have considered this request but have decided not to grant it, since this is a change in an existing tax and not the introduction of a new one.

Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will be deplored throughout the country, particularly in the building industry? Is he further aware that


it will completely undermine the construction industry's faith in the fixed-price contract system? Why has he capitulated to the Treasury in this cowardly way?

Mr. Mellish: Whatever else I am, I am not a coward. I understand the feelings of some of those involved. The truth is that for local authorities to have been able to apply thisex gratia payment legislation would have been necessary. The number of those having contracts with my Department is very small indeed. I very much hope that there will be no hardship.

Mr. Speed: Does the Minister recall that on 17th June he said:
I want to see justice done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 685.]
How does he reconcile this completely unhappy reply with that statement?

Mr. Mellish: I was then talking about the very few people involved having contracts with my Ministry. When one talks about this as a principle, one puts it right across all Government Departments and, therefore, the numbers involved are much more difficult and complex. As I explained, legislation would have to be introduced to enable local authorities to operate such a refund. It is for these reasons that the principle of this had to be denied.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware that this is utterly mean, shabby and confidence destroying for the industry—all the more so because the Government themselves accepted the fluctuation principle in CCC/Wks/1 and the R.I.B.A. form of contract?

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must not over-state this. The number of contracts involved is infinitesimal compared with the major number. This was a collective Government decision, for the reasons that I have given.

Building Licences

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many projects of between £50,000 and £99,999 in value were refused a building licence between 11th August, 1966, and 31st March, 1968; what was the value of those projects; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: There were 48 such projects with a total value of £3½ million, as stated in the Annex to my Report presented to the House on 22nd May, 1968. Such projects are, of course, now exempt from building control as a result of Statutory Instrument, 1968, No. 781, also laid before Parliament on 22nd May, 1968.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of the extremely small number of licences which had to be refused during two years of economic crisis, how can the Minister possibly justify continuing with these controls over the next few years when, as all his colleagues tell us, we shall have a period of economic recovery?

Mr. Mellish: I give this assurance. At this moment of time those applying for licences are being treated extremely generously. I am considering this issue very carefully. The moment the opportunity is there I shall ensure that the controls are removed.

Contractors (Serial Tendering)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the use of serial contracting by public sector building owners so as to keep together specialist design and construction teams at the conclusion of one-off jobs.

Mr. Mellish: I have always attached considerable importance to the recommendations of the Banwell Committee that aim at better continuity of work for contractors. Serial tendering is one way of achieving this. All public sector clients are being encouraged to make use of serial procedures where these are appropriate. Five experimental serial programmes have been organised within my own Department. These should provide useful experience which will be made available as widely as possible.

Mr. Allason: Does the Minister agree that this form of contracting is extremely useful, particularly in very expensive projects such as hospital building? Is he in consultation with the Minister of Health to ensure that what he likes to do the Minister of Health likes to do as well?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. It is my objective for my Ministry to set the example as to contracting procedures and for other


Government Departments to follow. Our knowledge on this, particularly the experience to which I have just referred, is one that other Government Departments will willingly follow.

Mr. Costain: The Minister has indicated that he appreciates the value of this, but does he realise that the Question is directed to design and construction teams? Is it not a great advantage that these teams should be kept together so that early mistakes can be corrected in future designs?

Mr. Mellish: I accept that. Forty per cent. of my Department's major works programme was let by term, negotiated or extension contracts. I take the point about the continuity of the design teams.

Cement (Surcharge)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in the light of the announcement of a 14½ per cent. increase in the pre-tax profit by Tunnel Portland Cement for 1967–68, he will now remove the special 2s. per ton surcharge on cement authorised in 1967.

Mr. Mellish: I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave him on 27th May, 1968. As a result of the statement by my right hon. Friend on the fuel oil surcharge, the Cement Makers Federation has reiterated its undertaking to remove the 2s. surcharge as soon as all the extra costs have been recovered.—[Vol. 765, c. 1212.]

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this company, which accounts for only 14 per cent. of cement manufactured, has recently announced profits of £2,600,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that profits of this order do not require an unearned bonus of a 2s. per cent. surcharge? Is it not high time that this temporary arrangement was seen to be temporary and removed?

Mr. Mellish: The N.B.P.I. investigated this company and its claims for increases and agreed same. I have an assurance from the company that the moment that it is practicable so to do this surcharge will be removed. I very much hope that we shall be hearing more about that within the next three months.

British Standard Time

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has initiated into the effect on productivity in the building industry of the introduction of British Standard Time; and what have been the findings of those studies.

Mr. Waddington: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what esimate he has made of the loss in productivity on building sites as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.

Mr. Eyre: Does this mean that no account has been taken of the difficulties of site working in darkness? If as a result of this local builders and their operatives change their working hours, will not they add to the peak hour traffic load of office workers? How will this help productivity?

Mr. Mellish: On the one hand, I am constantly being asked by hon. Members opposite to stop sending out questionaires and forms to the building industry; and I am trying to comply with their request. On the other hand, I am being asked for more information about this. The only way to get it is by asking the building industry for it. No one in the industry is complaining to me. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps complaining.

Mr. Waddington: Does not the Minister agree that the greater proportion of accidents in the building industry takes place in the early hours of the morning in winter? Is not he concerned that the introduction of British Standard Time will result in an increase in the accident rate?

Mr. Mellish: British Standard Time was not introduced as an arbitrary decision on the part of the Government. There were discussions with industries. The matter was debated on the Floor of the House. The majority of those involved favoured it. There is to be a three-year experimental period. At the end of that time I assume that there will be some statistics to justify either its continuation or its abolition. It is too early yet.

Mr. Heffer: What consultations did my right hon. Friend have with the Home Secretary? Does not he realise that there will be an increased cost of building as a result of the introduction of artificial light?

Mr. Mellish: At the time that British Standard Time was being discussed there was consultation between the Ministers responsible for all Departments concerned and, in my case, consultations with industry as a whole. Even in Scotland there was a majority in favour of this —only a very small majority, but nevertheless a majority. [Interruption.] Because there seem to have been more complaints about the effect of this on Scotland made by hon. Members opposite than there have been complaints about any other region.

Construction Industry (Output)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total value of output on new work by contractors in Great Britain in 1967; what is the approximate annual value of licensable work under the Building Control Act 1966; what was the value of work for which licences were refused from the commencement of controls until 31st March, 1968; and upon what criteria those licences were refused.

Mr. Mellish: £2,906 million, £170 million and £19·2 million. My Report to the House on 22nd May, 1968, contained a statement of the criteria upon which building licence applications are considered. Rather than take up the time of the House, I would refer the hon. Member to the Report.

Mr. Woodnutt: In view of the very small proportion of work done subject to licence and the small amount refused, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Gar-ston (Mr. Fortescue) that he will reconsider this whole question, will he go further and decide that this is a lot of nonsense and, as the unemployment rate in the construction industry is higher than it has ever been at this time of the year, will he not abolish the licensing system?

Mr. Mellish: The industry is not complaining to me that I am causing it

any hardships. I repeat that when the time is opportune these controls will be withdrawn.

Mr. Chichester-CIark: In view of these interesting figures, can the Minister estimate what was the immediate impact on the balance of payments of these measures as forecast by the Prime Minister in July 1966?

Mr. Mellish: Not without notice.

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimates he has made of the probable level of output in the construction industry in 1969 and 1970; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellish: I expect ouput on new work in 1969 and 1970 to increase by between 4 and 5 per cent. each year.

Mr. Woodnutt: Is not that rather small increase another reason for cutting out licences? The Minister is trying to meet us on this question and he says that he will look at it, but does he not appreciate that he must work hard to increase the throughput of the industry? In this day and age, we could be aiming at something like a 10 per cent. increase?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, but one must not underrate what these figures mean. Year after year, at constant prices, there has been an increase in output. Last year, there was an all-time record for the industry. Now we are looking for a 4 per cent. increase on that; next year, we hope to have a 4 per cent. increase on what we hope to achieve this year, and so on. It is a very creditable record.

Mr. Roebuck: I welcome the information which my right hon. Friend has given the House, but could he do more to persuade small building firms to co-operate together in the purchase of expensive machinery, which could then be shared among them in the same way as small farmers share expensive machinery, in order to increase productivity still more?

Mr. Mellish: Small builders do present a problem, I agree. I have a later Question about them, and at this stage I merely tell my hon. Friend that we have


a procedure now by which we discuss with the industry the problems of large, medium and small builders. If that proposition is put to me, I shall gladly consider it.

Industrialised Building Methods

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding competition between public and private enterprise in the system building sector.

Mr. Mellish: I welcome the development of industrialised building methods and consider that competition between one system and another stimulates technological advance. In my view, there is room for systems sponsored both by contractors and by clients in the public sector.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable concern is felt by private enterprise school-building systems sponsors that they are in danger of being squeezed out of business?

Mr. Mellish: I have not heard that. Private enterprise systems in the building industry are widely supported in high-rise work. One of the troubles here -I know something of this from my housing days—is that there are so many systems in low-rise work, and competition between them all is not very lucrative for some.

Small Builders (Finance)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what special arrangements he is making to make available finance to small builders unable to obtain overdrafts.

Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.

Mr. Allason: The small builder has an essential part to play in the construction industry, especially for repairs or alterations. If they cannot secure finance, how can the Minister expect them to continue in business? If he wants them to continue in business, will he go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do something about it?

Mr. Mellish: In my view, the small builder today has a greater future than he has had for a very long time, owing

to this Government's proposals for the improvement of older houses which give him a vast reservoir of work which I hope he will be able to undertake. It must be done via the local authority machine — that is all-important—but I hope that the local authorities will organise it properly for him and that all questions of that kind will be taken up with the local authorities.
My final word on the small builder is this. Let us not have it said that small builders are suddenly going bankrupt in large numbers. There have always been small builders who went bankrupt.

Mr. Barnett: Does not my right hon. Friend find this question rather odd, bearing in mind that small builders have not gone bankrupt only recently but they have as a sector of industry always been top of the annual list of bankruptcies?

Mr. Mellish: That is what I have tried to say. The industry is very much a jungle, and the small and weak animals often get devoured.

Mr. Costain: Does not the Minister realise that work for local authorities which do not pay quickly is most difficult work for small builders? This is a question of finance, not bankruptcy.

Mr. Mellish: Speaking to one of the larger animals in the industry, I accept that as a fair point from the hon. Gentleman. My views about payments by local authorities are well known. Some of them are quite disgraceful, and it is about time they made themselves better clients.

Hampton Court Palace (Picture Postcards)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why picture postcards depicting King William III are not available to the public at Hampton Court Palace; and if he will ensure that supplies of such cards for sale are again provided.

Mr. Mellish: This card was withdrawn in 1966 because there was little demand for it. Because of the limits of space, only the most popular items can be offered for sale.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman personally reconsider this matter and reach his decision not solely on a commercial basis but to honour the


glorious pious and immortal memory of a great historical figure, King William III, Prince of Orange?

Mr. Mellish: I am advised that the most popular card at Hampton Court is that of Henry VIII and his wives, all six of them. I can only say that we are in this as a commercial business and no notions of love or hate for William III come into it. We were selling only 700 cards of William III a year, and, since there are nearly 550,000 visitors a year to Hampton Court, this shows that he is not very popular this side of the water.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my rieht hon. Friend aware that when King William III occupied Hampton Court he never paid any rent? Will he ask King William's family to pay the debts they owe the country?

Mr. Mellish: If I remember the story of King William, he was dominated by his wife Mary. That may have been part of the trouble.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister publish a postcard showing a picture of His Holiness the Pope?

Mr. Mellish: That has nothing to do with Hampton Court Palace. That is the point. I should publish any picture postcard which we thought we could sell. I should even be prepared to publish one of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Sir Knox Cunningham) if I thought we could sell it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would it not be better to encourage a preoccupation with the deeds of King William III rather than with the marital proclivities of Henry VIII?

Mr. Mellish: But the public are not like that. They like to see a picture of Henry and all his wives together. They are not interested in William III. I cannot help that.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Minister to concentrate on the King and leave out the wives?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Ancient Monuments (Publicity)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the machinery for liaison with the

Board of Trade in publicity for ancient monuments for the furtherance of tourism in Great Britain.

Mr. Mellish: There is normal interdepartmental liaison on matters relating to tourism and the presentation of ancient monuments. In addition, we work closely with the British Travel Association, which is responsible for general tourist advertising overseas.

Mr. Shaw: In view of the wealth of ancient monuments within the purview of his Ministry and their potential for tourism, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done in the matter of consultation?

Mr. Mellish: If I thought that there were weaknesses, I should set about making improvements, but I am advised that my commercial manager, who is on the British Travel Association committee, liaises with the British Travel Association all the time, and there has been no complaint on that score. Last year there was an all-time record number of visitors to ancient monuments—over 10 million in all—and our income was nearly £750,000. It was an all-time record.

Tower of London (Statuettes)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what public response there has been to the sale of statuettes at the Tower of London.

Mr. Mellish: About 5,000 of each of the armoured figures have been sold since they were introduced in August and November last year.

Mr. Shaw: That will give a good deal of satisfaction, but, in view of the level of sales, will my right hon. Friend think of widening the range of such statuettes? I am sure that such a move would be popular.

Mr. Mellish: I am obliged for that suggestion. As my hon. Friend probably knows, this scheme is in its infancy. It is going extremely well, and large numbers are being sold. By the way, the statuettes are in Henry VIII armour. I hope that we shall be able to venture into other fields.

Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend consider extending the range to include statuettes of some hon. or right

hon. Members? Perhaps a statuette of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Sir Knox Cunningham) might sell well as showing an ancient monument.

Mr. Mellish: I have an idea that if we did that we should not sell any statuettes at all.

Palace of Westminster (Members' Rooms)

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether necessary works during the coming Summer Recess will result in disturbance to Members' rooms.

Mr. Mellish: I am sorry to say that it will. The works programme for this Recess includes the replacement of the existing annunciators by closed-circuit television sets, and the considerable extension of this service, as recommended in the Fourteenth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Session 1966–67. The wiring for this installation is inevitably extensive and will affect a great number of rooms.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although we congratulate him on trying to improve facilities in the desk rooms, most hon. Members will not be satisfied until adequate provision has been made for proper office accommodation for all who wish to have it?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir, and hereby hangs another tale. What we must do is put up another new building across the road in Bridge Street, and one day the House will give me permission so to do.

Mr. Goodhew: What is the cost of installing these closed-circuit television sets in all the desk rooms?

Mr. Mellish: I cannot answer off the cuff, but it is considerable. The hon. Gentleman must understand that I was given an instruction by a Select Committee of the House comprising Members of all parties. I have to take the instructions of the House in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Industrial Expansion Act

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the work of his Department arising from the Industrial Expansion Act.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Under the industrial investment scheme provisions of the Act, the House approved the Computers Merger Scheme on 21st June, 1968. I am now considering with industry a number of individual and general projects which may in due course call for action under these provisions.
I shall soon be completing the agreement to purchase the assets of the Beagle Aircraft Company. The arrangements for financial support for the production of Concorde are under discussion with the firms concerned. The increased finance for the National Research Development Corporation and the Shipbuilding Industry Board will, of course, be used to support the future activities of these organisations.

Mr. Barnett: Now that the I.R.C. is working so much more effectively, does my right hon. Friend consider that perhaps some of the schemes he originally envisaged introducing under the Industrial Expansion Act will not be necessary? In other words, does he think that he will need the Act quite as much as was first thought?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has another Question on the Order Paper about the I.R.C. There is no overlap here. In the case of the computer merger we put in £10 million in research and development, which the I.R.C. was not in a position to do. I do not visualise any difficulty between the two provisions.

George Kent and Cambridge Instruments (Takeover)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied with the operation of the machinery for cooperation between his Department, the Department for Economic Affairs and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation as regards the assistance given to George Kent in their successful takeover bid for Cambridge Instruments; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir. The Corporation kept my Department and the Department of Economic Affairs in touch with the situation as it developed. The arrangements by which close relations are maintained with the Corporation worked well.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the position becoming a little absurd in view of the large number of Departments involved in such cases—presumably in this case my hon. Friend's Department, the D.E.A. and the Board of Trade? Would my right hon. Friend consider having discussions with his colleagues with a view to bringing all matters of this sort under the auspices of one Department and one Minister?

Mr. Benn: Questions of the machinery of Government are for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There was no difficulty in this case because I am the sponsoring Minister for the electronics industry and the Department of Economic Affairs is concerned with the I.R.C.

300 GeV Nuclear Accelerator

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what studies he has made of the implications for British nuclear technology of the decision to withdraw British participation from the proposed CERN 300 GeV nuclear accelerator.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalien): The decision not to participate was taken only after the most thorough examination of all relevant factors, including the industrial implications of the project.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister agree that without a healthy foundation of fundamental research applied research cannot exist at all, and that ultimately the whole work of his Department depends on full participation by British scientists in fundamental research on a European or even a world scale?

Mr. Mallalieu: Fundamental research is vitally important, but it is a question of priorities.

Mr. Brooks: The way in which the Government announced the decision left many of us with a feeling of deep disquiet. Will he ensure that a much fuller statement of the implications of the decision is published as soon as possible?

Mr. Mallalieu: I was not aware of the disquiet. It seemed to me that my right hon. Friend's announcement was fairly complete, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's point of view to his notice.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister recall that in the White Paper is was stated that British industry had been remarkably unsuccessful in obtaining contracts for C.E.R.N., and that if we spent £44 million in our contribution to this project we should have that much less to spend on other advanced technologies, the rewards for which are much higher?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is undoubtedly correct.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend assure the Germans and other Europeans that there is no sense of absolute finality about our decision?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think that there is finality about this decision, but that does not mean that we do not want to go on collaborating on other projects.

Mr. David Price: Does the Minister agree that basic research lends itself more favourably to international cooperation than does development work in which there are commercial pay-offs and which lends itself to a good deal more political argy-bargy, for understandable reasons, than does fundamental research?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is a somewhat philosophical question, but I should think that it is correct.

A300 Airbus

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the A300 Airbus project.

Mr. Benn: A report by officials of the three Governments has now been submitted in preparation for the international Ministerial meeting planned for the end of the month.

Mr. Onslow: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the airbus is to keep to its programme of certification by 1972 and entry into service the following year metal must be cut and orders must be placed by the end of this year? Does he see any real prospect of that happening?

Mr. Benn: The object of a project definition stage is to give an opportunity for partners and firms to look at these projects very carefully. As has been


made clear by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and myself, our interest in aircraft which we build or in which we participate is that there should be a good economic return on them. That is why the project definition stage takes place, and that is why there is to be the meeting at the end of this month.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a few weeks ago we were assured that this project was proceeding? Is that still the case? Are there now other thoughts about the future prospects for the airbus?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will recall that what we said was that the project definition stage was proceeding, but we have always said that the object of that stage was to allow the partners involved to decide whether or not the aircraft was a proposition in which they should invest and advance with us. That has always been the reason for the project definition.

Scientists Appointment Service

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the co-operation of British industry with the grant-aided Scientists Appointment Service, designed to attract British scientists back from North America; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: This Service has been operating in its present form for only three months, and it is too early yet to assess its results. However, the initial response from industry has been quite encouraging.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a rather disquieting report of the Royal Institute of Chemistry quoted in theSheffield Morning Telegraph of 10th July that 200 top-rank British scientists are trying to return from America and that industry has shown an interest in only four? Can he jolt his industrial friends on this?

Mr. Benn: It has always been the case that large numbers of people in the United States, both British residents there and Americans, would like to work in this country, and the brain drain has always been seen, at least in part, as a problem of British industry's absorbing good people and using them fully.

Mr. David Price: Is the Minister aware that some evidence has come to me that the Scientists Appointment Service is not necessarily asking the right questions of British scientists in America in order to get the marriage of their talents to British industry? I should like an opportunity to talk to him about this.

Mr. Benn: I have no doubt that there can be an improvement in techniques, but the Service has been going for only about 12 weeks. Its object is to improve the prospects of bringing people home. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions, I should be very grateful to hear them.

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology what is the forecast price for Concorde upon which airlines have based their decisions to place options; and if he has now calculated what revision of the price has been necessitated by the delays in the 001 programme.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Airlines took out their options at different times, and based their decisions on different prices. The likely selling price is continually reviewed in the light of all relevant changes in circumstances.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that that has not begun to answer the Question, which asked for a specific price to justify an £800 million investment in research and development? Does he agree that the record of Anglo-French co-operation in this venture, not to mention the A.F.V.G. and the recent escalation in cost of the airbus on the part of the French, suggests that bilateral cooperation in this respect is rather misguided?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is not possible to give a direct answer to the Question other than the Answer I have given because the prices are very widespread. We are watching the escalation in costs with our French colleagues with extreme care.

Mr. Fortescue: Is work on the next two pre-production models of Concorde up to schedule, or is it still lagging behind?

Mr. Mallalieu: We have authorised production work to proceed.

TSR2 Aircraft

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Technology how much had been paid to the contractors responsible for the TSR2 by 6th April, 1965; what calculation was at that time available regarding further payments, including cancellation charges; and what was, in the event, the actual total of these outstanding payments.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: At the time of cancellation, payments to TSR2 contractors amounted to £125 million. Further payments, including cancellation charges, were then estimated at £70 million. Since cancellation such further payments have amounted to £53½ million. The final total is expected to fall well within the original estimate.

Mr. Brooks: We are dealing with figures of rather large dimensions and there still appears to be a substantial discrepancy. In order to clear the air once and for all on this, will my hon. Friend consider publishing a full and accurate document indicating the reasons for the discrepancy?

Mr. Mallalieu: The discrepancy between the estimate and the actual payments so far made is due in part to the fact that some of the sub-contractors concerned have not yet put in their claims. Others have put in claims that were manifestly too high.

Mr. Onslow: When the hon. Gentleman tells us that £248 million has been spent on the TSR2 and we have no aircraft to show for it, will he add the cancellation costs of the F111?

Mr. Mallalieu: That would be an entirely different question, but I shall certainly look at the amount of money we should have had to spend if this cancellation had not taken place.

Shipyards

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Technology what further consideration he has given to the deteriorating situation of the shipyards outside development areas; and if he will propose measures for assisting their survival, especially in districts of high unemployment.

Mr. Benn: I shall be writing shortly to my hon. Friend about the suggestion he made at a recent meeting for further help for yards outside development areas.

Departmental Staff (Engineers, Technologists and Scientists)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology how many qualified engineers, technologists and scientists are employed in his departments; and what percentage each of these represents of total staff.

Mr. Benn: The Ministry of Technology employs a total of approximately 4,200 qualified scientists, engineers and technologists. This represents 12 per cent. of the total civilian staff directly employed. I regret that separate figures of each category are not available.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the work of his Department—its coverage and so on—has greatly expanded during the last two or three years, and can he assure us that the supply of staff along the lines that I have indicated in the Question has expanded nearly correspondingly?

Mr. Benn: There has been an expansion of the work of my Department, but my hon. Friend should not suppose that it is our intention greatly to increase the number of qualified scientists and engineers that we employ. There has been a rundown in the Atomic Energy Authority, there is a reduction at Farn-borough and Malvern, and we are trying to hold the civil establishments stable. The object is in part to get more research done in industry.

Mallory Batteries Limited

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Technology how long his negotiations with Mallory Batteries Limited have now lasted; what action he now proposes to take to secure the implementation of Report No. 64 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: As I informed my hon. Friend on 1st July negotiations with Mallory Batteries Limited began on 13th May. When these are concluded, which I expect to be soon, I shall report to the House.—[Vol. 767, c.169.]

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not disgusting that with the biggest rise in any commodity the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board is being ignored? Does my right hon. Friend recall that the request was that the firm should withdraw "pending" negotiations, not "during" negotiations? Is he aware that it has an international monopoly and that the National Health Service has no alternative supply of these important commodities?

Mr. Benn: I think that the appropriate adjective to apply is "complicated" rather than "disgusting". There are a number of practical problems, including distributors' stocks, investment, development and the difference between domestic and export prices. In the discussions with the firm, which have been very full, we have approached a solution which I shall announce in the House as soon as I can.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Industry (Graduate Recruits)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to assist co-operation between industry and higher educational establishments in order to ensure that the professionally qualified recruits in industry will normally be graduates.

Mr. Benn: An increasing proportion of chartered engineers in industry are graduates and I am supporting the requirements of the Council of Engineering Institutions that after 1973 all candidates will be of degree standard.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the present tendency for the numbers of those who leave school at 15 and 16 to increase, and does it not seem that in the near future industry at graduate level and my right hon. Friend's Department may be starved of these recruits? What steps is he taking to fend off that tendency?

Mr. Benn: I am well aware, as everyone who has studied this is, that the shift away from the sciences in the schools and the shift from industry of university graduates poses potential dangers for industries. But the Science Research Council this year, by its policy of post-

graduate awards, is hoping to produce far more people for industry, and by this means and a number of other means we are hoping to ensure that the demand is met.

Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman in those considerations not underestimate the importance of the alternative ladder to chartered engineer status—that is, coming up through the works on O.N.C. and H.N.C.? Would he not agree that, however mature we are in our degree examination, there must always be the alternative route kept open to potential chartered engineers?

Mr. Benn: I think the point is very well understood by the C.E.I.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Hunt: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to allow alleged infringements of individual human rights to be brought before the Court of Appeal in accordance with Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The human rights specified in the Convention are already accorded under the existing law and practice in this country and remedies against infringements are already available, so that it is unnecessary to make provision for the kind of appeal suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that there is no court in this country specifically empowered to adjudicate on violations of human rights? Are the Government not, therefore, in this way in contempt of the European Convention, and would not Human Rights Year be a very appropriate time to put this right?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir; I do not think so. I am satisfied that the existing United Kingdom law conforms with the obligations imposed by the Convention and that the rights listed in the Convention are covered by remedies enforceable in our own courts.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Leaving aside the solution proposed by my hon. Friend, is the Attorney-General satisfied that all decisions taken which can affect the citizen are justiciable—in other words, can


go to a court in this country—or is there not a field in which there should be a much closer review of decisions, particularly administrative decisions?

The Attorney-General: The Government have instituted the Parliamentary Commissioner as an important advance in the protection of the rights of the individual citizen.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

National Board for Prices and Incomes (Temporary Secretarial Staff)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increase of approximately 8 per cent. over the past 12 months in the average weekly cost of temporary secretarial staff employed by the Board.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): The National Board for Prices and Incomes obtains temporary secretarial staff from employment agencies; and the question of charges made by such agencies, and the salaries paid by them to the staff they provide, has already been referred to the Board.

Mr. Onslow: While the Board is meditating on the points involved, would the hon. Gentleman ask it to tell him, and, so, the House, whether there has been a corresponding increase in the productivity of the staff?

Mr. Walker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the Board's Report, when no doubt it will make a relevant comment.

Mr. Barnett: How much of the Department's time has been wasted by the typically childish Question by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

Pharmaceutical Products (Prices)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what machinery exists for consultation between her Department and the Ministry of Health to restrain increases in the prices of pharmaceutical products.

Mr. Harold Walker: Full use is made of the normal machinery for consultation between Departments.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been very large increases recently which are excused by the pharmaceutical industry on the plea that the Ministry of Health has granted them? Is he aware that a 10 per cent. increase in the price of insulin has passed through? Is there some way in which he can bring prices down?

Mr. Walker: The price of insulin is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and I understand that my hon. Friend has a Question on the Order Paper to him. My hon. Friend will know that there is in existence a voluntary price regulation scheme, which is under consideration by my right hon. Friend in the light of the Sainsbury Committee's Report, and on which negotiations will shortly be taking place.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increase in price was vetted and, therefore, thought to be correct?

Mr. Walker: Indeed, Sir. Any price increases on pharmaceutical products prescribed by pharmacists are subjected to the voluntary price regulation scheme, which obliges the companies concerned to submit their price increases for consideration by my right hon. Friend, who has to be satisfied that the increases are necessary and justified, and also has to take into consideration the Government's prices policy.

Chairman of Hambro's Bank (Remuneration)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the outcome of her investigations into the increase in remuneration of the Chairman of Hambro's Bank from £20,866 to £25,145 a year in the last 12 months, in addition to share dividends.

Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Hambro has given my Department information about the recent increase in his remuneration. In view of my right hon. Friend's recent decision to refer the whole question of top salaries to the National Board for


Prices and Incomes, it is not proposed to pursue his individual case any further.

Mr. Allaun: Yes, but if no real action is taken on the general case, does it not mean that Mr. Hambro's little increase has been quietly buried, and how will the bus men react to that?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir; Mr. Hambro's increase has not been quietly buried but will be taken into account by the Board in reaching its conclusions. I advise my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the Board's Report.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this question would ever have been raised if Mr. Hambro's company had given a subscription to the Labour Party instead of the Tories?

Mr. Walker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that when a Question was originally asked referring to Mr. Hambro we were unaware of the contribution made to Conservative Party funds, and it would not have made the slightest difference to whom the contribution had been made.

Mr. Sandys: Tell that to the Marines.

Council House Rents (Investigation)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the cost of the recent investigation of council house rents.

Mr. Harold Walker: I regret the information is not available. The cost of the investigation cannot be separated from the cost of other work on which the Board was simultaneously engaged without a disproportionate expenditure of time.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of the whole project was, and what purpose was achieved by the inquiry?

Mr. Walker: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the achievement was the Report of the N.B.P.I., which was subsequently acted upon, giving a great deal of satisfaction to many thousands of council house tenants. With regard to the first part of his question, the staff of the Board are engaged simultaneously on a number of issues, and the issues on which they

are employed cannot be segregated without a considerable expenditure in time.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that, but for the Report, Tory councils all over the country would have raised rents even higher than they have done at the moment?

Mr. Walker: Of course.

Mr. R. Carr: How can the hon. Gentleman justify not being able to give this cost in view of the fact that the National Board for Prices and Incomes is constantly telling the people it inquires into that they should have proper project costing systems?

Mr. Walker: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had heard the first time when I said that the staff of the Board were engaged concurrently on a number of references. Of course, it would be possible to segregate and cost the times involved as separate references, but we do not feel that that is justified and that it would probably cost almost as much as the Report itself cost to produce.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

WEST END (DEMONSTRATIONS)

Mr. Hogg: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would make a statement about the disorderly events in the West End yesterday afternoon.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): In accordance with arrangements settled in advance between the organisers and the police, a meeting took place in Trafalgar Square yesterday and was followed by a march to Speakers' Corner via Grosvenor Square. Although there was some disturbance in Grosvenor Square, the main proceedings were orderly throughout.
When the main party of about 3,000 to 4,000 marchers left Grosvenor Square, about 500 stayed behind with the evident intention of making trouble. This group headed towards Hyde Park Corner and on the way set fire to some rubbish and did other damage to property. Disorderly groups subsequently reformed and moved


through Berkeley Square towards Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square. The last of these mobs was eventually dispersed by the police about 8.30 last night.
A number of police officers and civilians received injuries requiring medical aid, but none was detained in hospital. A total of 49 arrests were made and those concerned will be brought before the courts as soon as possible.
The House will, I am sure, agree that the police once more showed exemplary patience in dealing with a comparatively small number of hooligans. The purpose of these people is to attach themselves to peaceful demonstrations in order to force clashes with the police, damage property and make a complete nuisance of themselves. I have discussed this situation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and have left him in no doubt that he will have my full support in measures to combat mob violence and keep the streets and public places clear for peaceful enjoyment by ordinary citizens.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Home Secretary for the information which he has given us. I am also quite sure that the whole House will endorse his praise of the police and his condemnation of what I accept was a disorderly minority of what was basically an orderly demonstration.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these repeated breaches of the peace by an exhibitionist fringe are endangering the whole right of peaceful demonstration? Will he possibly consider that marches are one thing and meetings in Trafalgar Square and at Hyde Park Corner are another, and that if this sort of thing goes on he may have to limit demonstrations to meetings where they can do no damage?

Mr. Callaghan: It is clear that this kind of thing, taking place continuously, is bound to cause the kind of question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me. But I think that he and the House will take it that I should be very reluctant to interfere with these demonstrations.
In my view, the police and the courts now have adequate powers to ensure that such demonstrations are peaceful. I re-

mind the House, for example, that assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty can lead on summary conviction to six months imprisonment or nine months on a second or subsequent conviction, or a fine of £100, or both; or on indictment the punishment can be as much as two years' imprisonment or a fine. I believe that the powers exist and, therefore, I would not feel it proper to interfere with peaceful demonstrations.

Mr. Hogg: I accept a great part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has pointed out that much more serious penalties are available to the courts on indictment. Can he ensure that those powers are used and that those who break the law in future are not allowed to get off with a mere police court sentence?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I cannot ensure that the powers are used. I can point out what they are, because I think that it is in the interests of every one of us that the right of peaceful demonstration should be preserved. To me, that is the cardinal principle which should be followed. I am pointing out that there are adequate powers to deal with those who deliberately set out to provoke breaches of the peace.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not disgraceful that thousands of our fellow citizens should spend Sunday demonstrating outside the American Embassy instead of outside the Russian Embassy at a time when the Russians are trying to crush freedom in Czechoslovakia by threats of force?

Mr. Callaghan: As the authority concerned for the police, I am sure that the Commissioner would be very willing to extend peaceful protection to any march which wants to take place in any direction in London during the next few months.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public have had just about enough of seeing policemen injured, property destroyed and foreign embassies insulted, and that everyone will welcome the fact that he has asked the police to consider further measures? May we take it that he will make a statement to the House about those measures in due course?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that there is any need for further measures. The Commissioner of Police fully understands what his responsibilities are and where they begin and end, and I am satisfied that he will carry them out.

Mr. Tinn: But does not my right hon. Friend think that perhaps the time is coming when he should consider, before permission is granted for such demonstrations, whether the organisers should be required to deposit a substantial sum of money as partial indemnity of the public against the cost of these disturbances?

Mr. Callaghan: I have taken part in a considerable number of demonstrations myself—[An HON. MEMBER: "On Sunday?"] On Sunday. I was proud to march with 2,000 agricultural workers, and there was no trouble of any sort. But no one can prevent a group of troublemakers from attaching themselves to a demonstration, and it would be very hard on the organisers of a peaceful demonstration if they were to become responsible financially for the misdemeanours of others.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that after the Grosvenor Square demonstrations in March I tabled certain Questions suggesting a strengthening of the law and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was then premature? In view of the last shameful episode and the possibility of repetition, does he now agree that it is urgently necessary to strengthen the law so as to maintain order, protect people and property, and preserve the rule of law and the high reputation of our country?

Mr. Callaghan: My answer to all those questions is "No." I think that the powers exist. They must be used.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite a number of people who oppose American policy in Vietnam are strongly opposed to the violence and hooliganism which occurred yesterday?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am. I draw a very clear distinction as does the Commissioner of Police, between the organisers of this demonstration and those who attached themselves to it for

the purpose of making trouble and creating mischief.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the purpose of this minority of troublemakers to try to provoke the authorities and the police into repressive action leading to the loss of our liberties and the right of peaceful demonstration? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men such as this are planning violence on a really big scale for October? Is this being kept in mind, and if so, are precautions being taken?

Mr. Callaghan: I believe that it is the hope of some of those engaged in these demonstrations to provoke a situation in which the right to demonstrate might have to be interfered with. This is why we must be careful and—I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—to beware of falling into such a trap. I know, and the Commissioner knows, of other demonstrations which are being planned.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a very large section of the community who would wish to give every possible support they can to the police who, weekend after weekend, are subjected to these appalling outrages. Will he consider consulting the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to see whether there is some way in which some voluntary effort might be recruited to support the police in their efforts?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the police would want that, and I doubt whether, on reflection, the House would wish it. In my view, the police in these circumstances behave in a manner which is unequalled in any other part of the world, both in their wisdom and in their tolerance in handling these kinds of demonstrations. I am sure that it is best to leave it to them.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although I would be the last to condone the hooliganism which was exhibited yesterday, or at any time when these demonstrations occur, I believe that some provocative speeches have been made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite which have some effect on the behaviour of these people?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that those who go to these demonstrations for


the purpose of provoking violence care very much about the nature of any of the speeches that are made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many police officers were injured yesterday, and how many demonstrators?

Mr. Callaghan: There were only minor injuries. Thirty police officers and nine members of the public suffered minor injuries as far as I know.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what happened in Paris, when demonstrators were successful in provoking stronger action by the police and the consequences of that stronger action? Have not we every reason to be exceedingly grateful and to congratulate ourselves on the result of the police restraint here?

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to accept that, and will pass on to the Commissioner what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Sir C. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman permitted to send a recommendation to magistrates throughout the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not know, I am asking. Is the right hon. Gentleman permitted to send a recommendation, or at any rate to let magistrates know what penalties are available for those who are convicted?

Mr. Callaghan: I must be very careful here. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) rescued me on a previous occasion. There are people coming before the courts now as I speak, and I do not think that I should be accused of influencing the course of justice in any way.

Mr. Hogg: Although the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right in saying that he must not circularise magistrates, he can indicate to those in the employment of the Commissioner of Police what kind of charges ought to be preferred, and whether they should be proceeded against summarily or on indictment. Can he give an assurance that he will at least indicate that where an offence is capable of either treatment the question of indictment will not be overlooked?

Mr. Callaghan: The question of indictment or summary conviction is con-

stantly under review. I maintain close contact with the Commissioner of Police on these matters.

Mr. Thorpe: Notwithstanding the importance of that, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to leave these matters to the Attorney-General, who is a qualified lawyer, and to nobody else?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I am very deferential in the presence of all qualified lawyers.

URBAN PROGRAMMES (GOVERNMENT AID)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I apologise to the House for a second statement.
The Government have now completed the first stage of their study of urban areas facing acute social problems in the fields of education, housing, health and welfare. Many of these areas include concentrations of immigrants.
The study shows that large and expanding programmes are already having an impact in each of the main social services concerned and that in education and housing in particular, and in areas of immigrant settlement, priorities have been established within existing policies to increase the flow of aid to particular areas of special need.
Nevertheless, there remain areas of severe social deprivation in a number of our cities and towns—often scattered in relatively small pockets. They require special help to meet their social needs and to bring their physical services to an adequate level.
The Government propose to initiate an urban programme to help tackle the social problems of the communities concerned. Action will be required on a number of fronts and the programme must necessarily be a continuing one. I propose to open discussions with the local authority associations and seek their co-operation in working out the basis on which help can most effectively be provided. Corresponding discussions in Scotland would be carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
But I can inform the House that the Government are prepared to introduce


legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide a new specific grant, in addition to the existing rate support grant to assist this programme. Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, grants are already payable in respect of expenditure on staff in areas of immigrant settlement.
The new grant will be payable to other areas, including any in Scotland, that meet the necessary conditions, and in respect of any item of expenditure falling within the programme. Its percentage rate will be a matter for discussion with the local authority associations. Subject to Parliament passing the necessary legislation, the new grant will be payable retrospectively on expenditure incurred under the programme in the present financial year. The extra cost of this new and additional aid has been set against general economies made in the course of the normal processes of managing the expenditure programmes.
Meanwhile, to ensure an early start in launching the programme, the Government are prepared to sanction expenditure of some £20 to £25 million over the next four years, starting forthwith. They propose to select a number of local authorities where it is already clear that urgent needs exist and to settle direct with them projects which could proceed with least delay. In the first year, it is expected that these projects will be mainly in the field of nursery education and child care and will cover the provision of buildings, staff, equipment and. other items of expenditure.
The purpose of this programme is to supplement the Government's other social and legislative measures to ensure as far as we can that all our citizens have an equal opportunity in life.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement before we separate for the Recess. Will he note that when statements of this kind are contemplated it would be convenient if they were in the hands of the Opposition before they were actually delivered? We shall, naturally, want to digest this statement rather more fully than I have been able to, but, in the meantime, may I welcome the fact that the statement contains, not a direct relationship to race, but to an equal opportunity in life for all our citizens?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that if this is to have its optimum effect where we hope it will he will have to satisfy the country that he has adequate control over inflow into the country as regards possible abuse, terms of entry, and orderly settlement where reception can be possible? Does he recognise that much of the present unrest is due to disquiet about those matters?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not get the statement first. As always in the last week of the Session, a number of statements will be made during the next few days, and under the guidance of the Lord Privy Seal I thought it best to isolate this one this afternoon to give the House the earliest opportunity of hearing it.
As regards the separate but related question of immigration—and it is separate, although obvious related—I agree that there must be continued control over the inflow of immigrants. At present, a rigid control is exercised which allows newcomers to the country to enter on condition that their entry here aids our economy in one form or another. Of course, we have arriving the dependants of those who have already been here for some time, but that is another problem.
The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of March, 1968, enabled us to clear up some of the abuses. I can assure the House that the police and others concerned are very vigilant in this matter.

Mrs. Renée Short: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the money to be spent on nursery projects during the first year of this aid. Are all the towns mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his Birmingham speech, likely to get some help from the aid that he has promised? If so, on what sort of basis is the aid to be given?

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the early stage, what the Government feel is the best way of tackling the problem is to define needs rather than areas. Once we establish the criteria of need local authorities will soon identify themselves and the areas to which they apply. One of the matters that I shall discuss with the local authority associations is how to define all major needs.
The local authorities now enjoying Section 11 help will continue to enjoy it, and I hope to expand the definition of Section 11 when I bring legislation before the House, after I have discussed the matter with the local authorities.

Sir D. Renton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but did I understand him to say that the money allocated to the immigrant areas would not be at the expense of areas receiving large numbers under the Town Development Act? Bearing in mind that contained large-scale net increases of immigrants will merely mean that we shall have to have a still further allocation— perhaps next year—will he take very seriously the request made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to watch and do something about the question of a large-scale increase?

Mr. Callaghan: On the question of the relationship between areas, it will not be necessary to make any specific reduction in the programme of expenditure of one local authority to pay for the programme of another local authority. As I said in my statement—the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct—the general control of public expenditure and the savings that the Chancellor has been able to make in his continuing review are enabling us to improve on this programme in the years ahead. That is a gain. The control of immigrants is a matter with which the House and the country is very much concerned, and one to which I shall continue to give my attention.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the fact that many urban areas have inherited grave and serious social problems irrespective of immigration, and resist any classical politically motivated attempts to make immigrants the scapegoats for this purpose?

Mr. Callaghan: It is for this reason that the statement I have made covers areas of need where there is social deprivation among any citizens and not merely those who are coloured or those who are immigrants. I have had the figures got out. I hope that it will not be regarded as too much of a party point if I say that they show a tremendous increase.
The expenditure on health and welfare, child care, housing and education in 1963–64 in the areas that now receive Section 11 help was £450 million. For the year 1968–69 that £450 million, in the case of those areas alone, has increased to £860 million. There has been a tremendous improvement.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the statement which he has made? May I say how wise I think he is that this should extend to deprived areas as a whole and not be tied particularly to the problems of immigrant areas? I believe that this in itself will help to maintain reasonable relations, if not to improve the relations which now exist.
Will the right hon. Gentleman, in observing the number of immigrants—on which he has said that he is keeping a very close watch—consider whether it is not necessary to take stronger powers for the better regulation of the flow of those coming into this country as dependants and the continued entry of those that he believes are required for our economy? This in itself would reduce some fears and tensions. The help that he will give to deprived areas will not be most effective unless these fears are removed by better control and regulation, and the reduction of the numbers coming in.

Mr. Callaghan: It was the basis of the original plan put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his Birmingham speech, that expenditure must be on the basis of need. He said then that the immigration problem is only one factor—although an important factor —in the assessment of social need. I am certain that that is the right approach, and I am grateful to the Opposition for saying that they agree.
Although immigration is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, I watch the inflow of those to whom work vouchers are given and I know that their numbers are closely related to the economic needs of the country. Whatever may have been the case in the past, I do not believe that it can be argued now that large numbers of people are arriving here who are not going to contribute materially, either through a professional occupation or a skilled occupation of one sort or another.
We get into much greater difficulties over the flow of the dependants of those who arrived in the unregulated years. Although I am considering, and have considered, the use of such things as entry certificates, quotas and the rest— because I recognise that this is a very important problem and that great sensitivities are involved—I would not at this stage like to say that there are proposals which will reduce the flow of dependants, but a natural decrease will take place because the number of voucher holders arriving is now that much smaller.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the day spent by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in my constituency last Monday—and my constituency has the highest number of immigrants of any in the country—was greatly appreciated? Will he regard as a matter of urgency the problem of the September opening of schools, the need for more personnel, and the important problems that he was able to discuss with my education officer?

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary of State has visited about 15 areas during the course of the Government's consideration of this study of the urban areas, and what he has been able to discuss with the local authorities has added materially to our information. It is for this reason, and the recommendations that he brought back, that we believe that in the first place, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, provision should be made in nursery education and child care in the first year.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement—which we shall want to study in full—is to be welcomed to the extent that it seeks to provide equality of opportunity for all our citizens and to give local authorities financial assistance to achieve this?
May I ask two questions? First, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the £20 million to £25 million vote to which he has referred will be sufficient to assist local authorities in starting projects urgently needed in the confident expectation of retrospective payment? Secondly, since he has mentioned his projected talks with the A.M.C. and the

C.C.A., does not he think that that is an added reason why we should move quickly in setting up an all-party committee of the House to discuss the racial matter and so remove some of the controversy from party politics?

Mr. Callaghan: The £20 million to £25 million spread over four years is intended to be devoted not only to revenue, but capital projects. I have made a detailed list of such projects which, I believe, could be started relatively quickly which would aid these areas.
The question whether it will be sufficient or not is a matter to be discussed. It must be considered against the general background of Government expenditure, but on the basis of the information that I have been given it will make a substantial impact in the areas of greatest need.
As for the question of an all-party committee, I am at this moment ready to submit proposed terms of reference to the parties concerned, and I hope for the cooperation of everyone in setting it up.

Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the areas concerned will appreciate the aid offered by his proposals? But does not he also think that in respect of education, at least, it would be simpler and cheaper if he accepted the proposal turned down by Her Majesty's Opposition when in power and, I understand, by the Front Bench here, to restrict the immigration of non-English-speaking people, irrespective of the colour of their skins?

Mr. Callaghan: The restriction on aliens, as distinct from Commonwealth citizens, if that is what my hon. Friend refers to—

Mr. English: Non-Engling-speaking.

Mr. Callaghan: Well, that includes many aliens, anyway—[Laughter.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not qualifying for reference to the Race Relations Board.
The aliens who come here do so, on the whole, for a relatively short period, and, therefore, do not use the educational services which we are discussing. The disabilities which we are trying to remove under education are those which were pinpointed by Plowden—poor schools, overcrowded schools and children in


trouble—and the criteria of need which chat Committee established.

Sir E. Boyle: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the discussions with the local authority associations will cover both the additional projects which can be approved over the next four years and also the level of financial aid which will be given by the Government? Is he aware that, from the point of view of an authority like Birmingham, with severe needs, the level of financial aid which can be made available is important as well as the quantity of extra projects which may be approved by the Government?

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to both questions is, "Yes, Sir."

Miss Lestor: While, of course, being very interested in and pleased about this announcement of help for immigrant areas, may I ask my right hon. Friend what plans he has or has discussed for the very real problem of the number of non-English-speaking children, coming, particularly to my constituency, who will be leaving school within the next few years with an inadequate education, especially so far as this relates to speaking English, because this will be the main problem which we will all have to face, in terms of employment, in the near future?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. That would, I think, qualify under Section 11 as it is drawn now, but the question of adult education for such people is one of the matters which I would want to discuss with local authorities, to see what help they needed under this programme.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the very important housing effort in Birmingham depends not only on finance but also on the necessary land being made available?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has said about nursery schools will be received with considerable satisfaction generally? When does he expect the consequences of these measures to be felt in the constituencies, and what arrangements are particularly likely in reference to the rather complicated situation in London

in respect of the I.L.E.A. and the London boroughs?

Mr. Callaghan: I could not answer my hon. Friend's query about the I.L.E.A. and the London boroughs at the moment, but I would hope to see projects started in the current year, if, as I understand, Parliament were willing to give retrospective sanction to such expenditure as may be incurred. In other words, subject to the Queen's Speech, which I obviously cannot foresee, I hope that legislation might be introduced early next Session.

Mr. Tilney: Since there are areas of old immigration, such as Merseyside, which have been much more successful in integration than other areas, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that such areas will not be penalised because of their success?

Mr. Callaghan: I emphasise again that the approach is on the basis of need and not of area or even of whether the immigration is new or old. Where these areas exist, we should try to pinpoint them, and then they will identify themselves—whether they are old areas, where integration has gone well, or new areas, where it has hardly started.

Mr. Orme: On the subject of the extra aid for day nurseries, the area which I represent does not have a large immigrant population, but has a large special area problem such as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Is it not a little ironic that, in that area, day nurseries are now being closed, yet my right hon. Friend is proposing extra grants? What measures will he take to see that these facilities which he proposes are used by the local authorities concerned?

Mr. Callaghan: There is, of course, a distinction between day nurseries and nursery schools, but I would ask my hon. Friend to leave this over for us to have discussions with the local authorities during the Recess, when, perhaps, I can report further later.

Mr. Sandys: While welcoming measures to help local authorities with special difficulties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the acute overcrowding in certain areas, he does not consider it to be reasonable that


immigrants who wish to bring in dependants should be required to satisfy the immigration authorities that there is adequate accommodation available in the area concerned?

Mr. Callaghan: This is a problem which needs, and is under, consideration, but I know of no way, so far, in which it can be successfully solved.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[28TH ALLOTTED DAY],considered.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — NIGERIA

4.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): This is a short debate, on a subject on which all of us feel deeply concerned, and I am sure that many hon. Members will be seeking to speak. It would, I understand, be convenient, and will meet the point made by the Leader of the Opposition at Business Question Time on Thursday, if I were to open with a short account of the report which Lord Hunt and his colleagues have made to the Government on the relief situation in Nigeria. I will try to make it as brief and dispassionate as the gravity of the issue and its harrowing nature allows. With permission, I will then be glad to deal, at the end of the debate, with the other aspects of the Nigerian problem which will, no doubt, be raised.
Lord Hunt and his colleagues—Sir Colin Thornley, of The Save the Children Fund, Mr. Hodgson, of the British Red Cross, and Dr. Evans, the medical expert —left London after a rapid and intensive briefing on 5th July, which was three days after I had announced to the House their acceptance of their urgent task. The first of Lord Hunt's recommendations was received in London within 36 hours of his arrival in Nigeria, and he continued to send recommendations throughout his visit. I can assure the House that no time has been lost in taking up those recommendations, many of which were acted on by us well before Lord Hunt and his colleagues returned to this country. Lord Hunt and Sir Colin Thornley arrived back on Friday evening. I and my officials had a long conference with them on Saturday and they reported their findings to the Prime Minister today.
During the course of the mission's stay in Nigeria, Lord Hunt and his


colleagues were able to visit the main areas of distress in the Mid-Western State, in the Enugu area and in the South-Eastern State. They had full and useful discussion with General Gowon and other members of the Federal Government. They had detailed discussions with the Commissioner for Rehabilitation who, during the period of Lord Hunt's visit, was given additional responsibility by the Nigerian Government to deal with problems of relief. Lord Hunt and his team had a full exchange of views with representatives of the International Red Cross and other relief organisations
I think that it is not too much to say that their presence and activities in Lagos acted as a catalyst and an encouragement to others, inside and outside Nigeria, to come to grips even more earnestly with this daunting problem. From this point of view, in particular, their mission was well-timed and worth while.
The first question which the House will ask, and which Lord Hunt and his team set out to answer, was: what was the real degree of need in Nigeria? Lord Hunt is now in no doubt that the human need for relief is great and requires international effort to be solved. Although estimates of people in dire distress resulting from the war, along the perimeter of the fighting line on the Federal side, must be treated with reserve, Lord Hunt considered that 1 million would not be an unrealistically high figure. In the South-Eastern State there is, he reports, very severe and pitiable distress. Malnutrition and starvation are rife, with a high death rate, which is running, possibly, at 200 or 300 a day.
In general, Lord Hunt has reported, his mission was much impressed by the assistance given by the Federal Nigerian Army in the forward areas in providing emergency relief within their means. For example, in Onitsha, the Army was running relief for 3,500 refugees, who appeared to be in good health and morale. He observed that a spirit of vindictiveness was notable by its absence among responsible people whom his team met.
The second question which Lord Hunt sought to answer was: given this degree of need, what are the priorities?

Lord Hunt has defined to us the most pressing needs as follows: first, food and medical supplies; secondly, doctors and relief workers; and thirdly, transport. In trying to meet some of the most urgent needs, we have already used or firmly committed about one-half of the £250,000 allocated by the Government for relief aid in Nigeria. There was an earlier provision of £20,000, made some weeks ago. That was given direct to the British Red Cross, which immediately purchased and despatched medical and food supplies which have reached Nigeria.
The third question which arises is: how can this help be best organised and how can these priorities be most quickly fulfilled? It was immediately obvious to Lord Hunt that the only chance of achieving an effective distribution of aid throughout the areas of need—that is, on both sides of the fighting line—was to channel it through the co-ordinating machinery of the International Red Cross. This is a cardinal recommendation which we think is of general application in order to avoid duplication and misunderstanding, and the Government certainly propose themselves to follow it.
The International Red Cross has accepted this obligation and it has been recognised by the Federal Government and by other donor Governments as the proper channel for the administration of all international relief work in Nigeria. I remind the House that U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has since endorsed that recommendation on behalf of the United Nations.
I should like to tell the House exactly what we have done and are doing. A Hercules aircraft of the R.A.F. Support Command flew to Lagos on 12th July with a load of food supplies provided partly from Government stocks and partly by charitable organisations in this country. I want to emphasise that this load consisted entirely of supplies which we had been advised by Lord Hunt were urgently needed. This is important not only in underlining the degree of urgency under which we have sought to operate;, but because, until Lord Hunt arrived and was able to assess the needs on the spot, some of the supplies being rushed out were not appropriate and were leading to waste of precious resources.
A further load was transported to Lagos by an R.A.F. Britannia on 18th July. Its cargo consisted of specialised medical supplies of types, again, which Lord Hunt had identified as being of special urgency. These are being distributed under the auspices of the International Red Cross. Some of these supplies are already being used by a British medical team organised by the Save the Children Fund which was flown out to Nigeria and is installed at Awgu, situated between Enugu and the edge of the territory controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. More food and medicines are being assembled for transportation by the R.A.F. this week.
Lord Hunt found that the primary need was for skilled personnel to administer relief. At his request, three medical teams—recruited by the Save the Children Fund—were flown from London to Lagos on 12th and 18th July to join other teams already operating under the auspices of the International Red Cross. Another two teams can be made available at short notice as soon as the International Red Cross asks for them. The Government have underwritten the cost of supplying these teams from our grant of £250,000, but the Save the Children Fund has generously agreed to finance as large a share as possible of the cost from its own resources.
It is clear from Lord Hunt's report that the provision of transport for the distribution of supplies is of major importance. Twenty 3-ton trucks and five Landrovers, all of them four-wheel-drive vehicles, were released from Army stocks and shipped from Dover on 12th July on a vessel specially diverted by the Elder Dempster line. This vessel is expected to arrive in Lagos later this week. Lord Hunt has since recommended the purchase and despatch of other vehicles, mainly lorries, which have already been ordered and which will reach Nigeria during the next few weeks. Oxfam has generously volunteered to pay for 25 of these vehicles. On Lord Hunt's recommendation, the Government have also purchased six field ambulances which are being shipped from Liverpool this week.
I wish at this point to pay tribute to British firms established in Nigeria who, in co-operation with Lord Hunt's mission, have also undertaken to provide vehicles,

drivers and maintenance teams locally. As a result of this invaluable initiative, a fleet of about 50 vehicles has been assembled, some of which will operate from the main supply centres to the main distribution centres, while others will operate from there within the disaster areas and along agreed corridors as and when these may be established. Other vehicles are intended for the movement of goods from Calabar to the distressed areas in the South East and Lord Hunt was informed that ships are moving many tons of relief goods from Lagos along the coast to Calabar.
One of the chief needs identified by Lord Hunt in connection with this transport operation was the need for self-contained chains of transport carrying relief supplies to the main refugee areas. We are ascertaining through the Red Cross how the installation and maintenance of these essential transport links can most effectively be brought about.
Lord Hunt has come to the conclusion that the Government's contribution of £250,000 is adequate for the present, together with other donations which are being received from other Governments and from private agencies all over the world. The immediate concern—and I should like to emphasise that to the House—is not inadequate money, but the need to build up an adequate distribution organisation. The Federal Government are co-operating energetically in this and the Rehabilitation Commission, which is charged with overall responsibility for relief operations, is working closely with the International Red Cross.
Lord Hunt also expressed firmly the view that the land route is the most effective way by which adequate relief supplies can quickly be brought to those who are suffering inside the Ibo area. General Gowon confirmed to him the willingness of the Federal Government to open a relief corridor from Enugu to Awgu and then to an agreed point on the Okigwi road, where Colonel Ojukwu's authorities could take over. The suitability of this road was checked by members of Lord Hunt's team. Sir Colin Thornley himself drove down the road without difficulty or obstruction in a relatively short time.
I emphasise to the House again that the desirability of this mercy corridor from Enugu has been endorsed by the


International Red Cross, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, most recently, by the Organisation for African Unity. The supplies are already in transit from Lagos to Enugu and can start to flow to those who need them the moment Colonel Ojukwu says the word.
A suggestion has also been made in discussions about what is the best way to get relief supplies—a suggestion to the Press by Colonel Ojukwu of a demilitarised zone and corridor around Port Harcourt, through which supplies could go after delivery by sea. Not only would this proposal—and I do not know whether it has been formally put forward by Colonel Ojukwu—raise obvious political and military difficulties, but the sea channels to Port Harcourt were blocked during the fighting and are still uncertain and dangerous to navigation.
Lord Hunt also pressed for a temporary emergency air lift to shift the stockpiles which have accumulated at Fernando Po. Colonel Gowon confirmed to Lord Hunt that he would seriously consider the possibility of direct flights to a neutralised airstrip in Biafra if the International Red Cross were able to make arrangements with Colonel Ojukwu by which the I.R.C. assumed full control of this. I have just heard—a short time ago—that the I.R.C. has now asked the Biafrans for the use of an air strip under the control of the International Red Cross for use day and night.
The Biafrans have not so far replied, but the International Red Cross says that even if daylight flights only can be arranged it will still insist that the air strip should be under its complete control. I very much hope that this offer, which seems to unlock what has been a particularly difficult door, will be accepted swiftly by Colonel Ojukwu on behalf of the people who are suffering in the territories which he controls.
It was our hope and intention that Lord Hunt would have paid a visit to the areas controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. Unfortunately, we were informed in writing by a representative of Colonel Ojukwu before Lord Hunt set off for Nigeria that such a visit would serve no useful purpose. We persisted in our endeavours in this direction and there were subsequent indications that this attitude might be modified, but, unfor-

tunately, no confirmation of that was received before Lord Hunt had to return home at the weekend.
Despite this, Mr. Hodgson, Deputy Director-General of the British Red Cross and a member of Lord Hunt's team, went to Fernando Po, where he waited for several days in the hope of being able to fly into the Ibo heartland to make an assessment of the need there and the best means by which help could be given to meet it. Mr. Hodgson was offered full travel facilities by the International Red Cross, but I regret that, for reasons outside his control, he was unable to complete his journey.
Lord Hunt has authorised me to say that even now he would be willing to visit the areas controlled by Colonel Ojukwu on receipt of assurances that such a visit would be welcome and that he would receive the necessary co-operation.
Her Majesty's Government, the whole House and, I am sure, the country are greatly indebted to Lord Hunt and his colleagues for the thorough, efficient and dedicated work which they put in during their visit to Nigeria, work which was free from any suggestion of political involvement or bias. Their work and recommendations have not only helped us to use the British grant in the most effective ways, but have also inspired others to co-operate in establishing channels of relief more commensurate with the appalling needs of the situation in Nigeria.
The results of Lord Hunt's investigations are being put at the disposal of the voluntary agencies here and I am making them available to other interested Governments who are concerned that their own contributions should be as effective as possible. Sir Colin Thornley and Mr. Hodgson have arranged to visit Geneva to discuss Lord Hunt's impressions with the I.R.C. and to further co-operation in that connection.
The House will have noted, in addition, the appointment by the I.R.C. of Mr. Lindt, a distinguished Swiss diplomat and a former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to direct from Geneva the operations for relief in Nigeria. The appointment of Mr. Lindt, with that of Mr. Hitz, as the International Red Cross Head of Mission in Lagos, is


an important step forward in the machinery of the I.R.C. for tackling this appallingly urgent problem. Sir Colin Thornley and Mr. Hodgson will go to Geneva as soon as Mr. Lindt has returned from his present visit to Lagos so that they can confer together.
I promised at the outset that I would be as brief as possible and confine my remarks to Lord Hunt's report. It may be for the convenience of the House, however, if I add briefly a comment about what I regard as a significant, hopeful and helpful development over the weekend regarding peace talks. The House will be aware that at its meeting in Niamey, Niger, on 18th July, the Consultative Committee on Nigeria of the O.A.U. reviewed developments in the Nigerian civil war which it discussed with both General Gowon and Colonel Ojukwu.
The Committee asked the Federal Government to implement without delay their decision to establish a mercy corridor for the transportation of food and medical supplies to the affected areas and appealed to the secessionists to co-operate by accepting relief supplies transported through this emergency corridor.
The O.A.U. also thanked Governments and organisations which had given assistance for the relief of civilian suffering and appealed to other Governments and organisations to ensure the continuation of this humanitarian assistance. Most important, the Committee issued a special communique in which it announced that the Federal Government and Colonel Ojukwu had each agreed to initiate forthwith preliminary talks in Niamey under the chairmanship of President Diori, and had also agreed to resume peace negotiations in Addis Ababa as soon as possible under the auspices of the O.A.U.
Hon. Members will welcome these hopeful developments as warmly as I do and will wish them every success. They make an encouraging prelude to what otherwise is a very solemn debate indeed today. I am personally anxious, as are all hon. Members, to say nothing in this debate that might make these crucial discussions more difficult.

4.25 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Opposition have

selected this subject for a part of one of their Supply days because we thought that the whole House would be anxious to debate the situation in Nigeria before we rise for the Summer Recess.
We are grateful to the Commonwealth Secretary for complying with the suggestion that he should open the debate. In so doing, he has disentangled some of the confusing facts in this situation. This confusion has made it difficult for us to know what to believe and what was the right thing to do.
It must be recognised that the war in Nigeria is a civil war of extreme violence and passion and that the influence of outsiders on this situation is marginal. Nevertheless, we in Britain feel that we have an obligation to give any help that we possibly can to a Commonwealth country —help in two ways, either to mitigate the suffering that arises from the war or to assist in bringing about peace, if that is within our power.
There will be general agreement on the priorities which the right hon. Gentleman outlined: first, the organisation of relief of the starving on both sides of the fighting line; secondly, the establishment of a cease-fire; and, thirdly, a political settlement. The right hon. Gentleman rightly concentrated his account today on Lord Hunt's mission, the possibility of helping the suffering and those who are starving and who, in many cases, are dying.
I wish to associate my hon. Friends with the tribute the right hon. Gentleman paid to Lord Hunt and his colleagues. In very difficult circumstances they did work of real value. It is a horrifying thought that the Commonwealth Secretary had to say that, in Lord Hunt's opinion, I million people are in need and that 200 to 300 people are dying each day. It is difficult to think of these circumstances as a reality—but it is a reality and this is what is happening in another country of the world at this moment. It is clear, therefore, that problems of these dimensions cannot be dealt with except by international action.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that an advance has been made in several ways. The first is in the mobilisation of the necessary supplies and food; in establishing what are the real needs in terms of food and medical supplies and in providing the transport which,


if the routes are open, can be used to get these supplies to the right places. The second is in co-ordinating the relief programmes of the various private agencies. This is an important matter and extremely necessary after the experience of the first few weeks. The third and most important, as the right hon. Gentleman emphasised, is the acceptance of the International Red Cross as the instrument of distribution.
Her Majesty's Government have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, made contributions which are right and which, I believe, have been prompt; for example, the Hercules and Brittania with the kinds of food selected by Lord Hunt as essential, the three medical teams from the Save the Children Fund, which has shown great generosity, not only in this respecst but by way of sums made available, the 20 3-ton lorries, field trucks and ambulances which have been made available and the £250,000 which Lord Hunt formed the view was probably adequate for the present, since the need is for the orderly distribution of supplies rather than for more supplies at present. I have no doubt, however, that Her Majesty's Government would produce more money if that were found to be necessary at a future date.
Missing so far is a sense of urgency on the side of the combatants in Nigeria. We were glad, therefore, to hear of Lord Hunt's remarks about the Federal Government's activities in assisting humane action. I hope that Colonel Ojukwu will in future be less intransigent and will dismiss, by his actions, the suspicion that starving people have been used for political leverage, because this suspicion has become widespread abroad.
From the information given by the Commonwealth Secretary, it seems that the leaders of both sides are now applying their minds more seriously to the routes by which food may be brought in and the means by which relief on this scale can be brought to the sufferers. Quite clearly, this problem will take a long time to solve. Therefore, a land corridor which will bear the weight of the traffics over months, if not years, is an absolute necessity. I hope that that is now broadly agreed by both sides.
But if lives ares to be saved—and, I repeat, it is said that 200 or 300 people

are dying each day—it is obvious that there should be an airlift. A question on which I am not quite clear, and perhaps the Commonwealth Secretary will help to clear it up in his reply, is why food is not now arriving for the hungry on the Federal side of the line, where, we are given to understand, a good many thousands of people are in a very bad way.
What are the real difficulties left in designating an airstrip in Ibo territory? I should have thought that certification of food by the Red Cross ought to be able to eradicate the Ibos' fear of poison. I should have thought, too, that an airstrip could be designated under the complete control of the International Red Cross. I am glad that the International Red Cross has asked for this control by day and by night. If the airport is not used at night, the Red Cross must control it at night. This should remove the complementary fear on the Federal side that the airstrip might be used for the importation of arms if it was not being used for the importation of food.
There are possibly two hopeful developments there. At any rate, these two matters ought to be capable of solution. U.N.I.C.E.F. has been and is operating through the Red Cross, and that, too, is good. Therefore, in this field of relief I think that the Commonwealth Secretary had some hopeful things to say if we can only get the essential co-operation of the leaders of the two competent forces.
The second priority is the cease-fire, and it is profoundly to be hoped that the initiative taken by the Organisation for African Unity will succeed. It is possible here that the previous suggestion of a Commonwealth force, either to observe or to police, so that the Ibos might feel that they were protected from the danger of massacre might come into the picture again, and I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, such a force can be mobilised in a reasonable time and what steps are being taken to see what its membership might be. I believe it to be a suggestion of practical value, particularly looking at it from the Ibos' side.
We hope, therefore, that the two sides will get together rapidly at Addis Ababa, and it is good to know that this meeting place has been agreed. I do not know that it is profitable today to go very far


into the issue that is central to the dispute, which is notoriously difficult—the right of a territory to secede from a federal structure. I think that it is apparent that in the last resort it is a matter which can only be agreed by the Nigerians. The comments of others at this time might be harmful, and, at best, would be useless. The two sides should get round the table and try to settle the matter for themselves. We must not look forward to the penalty of failure, but if there were failure the Nigerian troops undoubtedly would invade the Ibo heartland, and then the war would start again.
A relevant question, perhaps less urgent today than it was when we last talked about the matter but one which is genuinely exercising many minds, particuuarly in this country, is whether Her Majesty's Government are right, in these circumstances, to continue to ship to Lagos even the 12 per cent. of the arms which the Federal Government use. We on this side have hesitated to advocate that action should be taken on this matter now, not because the Federal Government could not easily acquire the arms elsewhere—of course they could, and in a very short time—but because the Federal Government holds the key, first, to the organisation of the relief of the hungry; secondly, to the possibility of a cease-fire; and, thirdly, to the nature of the ultimate peace settlement. There is some evidence that General Gowon is influenced by the counsels coming from Her Majesty's Government and the British people.
We have to realise—and must weigh this consideration against other considerations that we may have, and give it sufficient weight—that if the arms to the Nigerian Government were withdrawn, any influence which Her Majesty's Government wield today would be totally gone. We must, therefore, ask ourselves whether so to act would serve the Ibos or, indeed, anyone else in Nigeria. There are two situations possible in the future in which the Government might decide that they would have to withdraw arms. One is if the war began again, with the invasion of the heart of the Ibo land, and the other is if there should be any evidence emerging from the peace talks in Addis Ababa that the temporary suspension of arms might make a contribution to the success of the peace talks.
I do not think that we can tell this in advance, but should that come about

it might be a circumstance in which arms might be withdrawn. But for the reasons I have given, this could be a very serious step to take. The House should be very careful before it makes up its mind what, in these circumstances, is best for the Ibos and best for the whole Nigerian nation.
I believe that, on balance, we are bound to conclude that the real way in which Her Majesty's Government can assist is to use all our authority with the Federal Government for the restraints that are necessary to obtain an agreed political settlement. That, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, and in that purpose we wish him good fortune.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that the whole House will wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary not only for his statement, but for the hard work he has put in to try to bring about a settlement in Nigeria. I congratulate the Government on their wisdom in sending to Nigeria a mission led by Lord Hunt, and I join in paying tribute to it.
I also want to pay tribute to our voluntary agencies who, at all times, in circumstances like these, immediately go to work and try to do what they can. Their work is often very difficult, but I pay tribute to them all; the voluntary agencies, the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church—and we have learned what the Pope himself has done. They all work in difficult circumstances and with limited resources. It is, therefore, essential that their efforts should be co-ordinated so that there will be an avoidance of waste. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend's acceptance of the recommendation of the Hunt mission that all this work should be co-ordinated through the International Red Cross. I am sure that all the voluntary agencies would be glad to co-operate fully in that respect.
The events in Nigeria make a terrible story—1 million people in very dire straits, and 300 dying every day. This, in a Commonwealth country. The House and the whole country is deeply moved.
I appreciate, as do all those who knew something of Nigeria, that the best thing for relief is to get a corridor of


mercy—a land route. We know that to provide the route, to repair the roads damaged by war and to provide the transport will all take time, but assuming that there is agreement on all sides that a land route should be provided as quickly as possible to transport food, medical supplies and other help to these suffering people, can the Commonwealth Secretary tell us first how long it will take?

Mr. Thomson: I must answer my right hon. Friend immediately on that crucial point. I understand that some of the supplies are already moving across to the proposed corridor of mercy. I understand that some of these supplies could go into Biafra this week if there were willingness to receive them.

Mr. Griffiths: I am very glad to hear that.
I add my voice to that of both right hon. Gentlemen in a plea to Colonel Ojukwu. I have a deep regard for the Ibo people and I understand the circumstances, however wrong we think them I add my word to that of the two right hon. Gentlemen in urging Colonel Ojukwu to co-operate in every possible way, urgently, at once, with the Federal Government and particularly with the International Red Cross, to get supplies quickly to the stricken people. If he now refuses this he will lose a great deal of the sympathy he has evoked from people in this country, including myself.
While accepting what my right hon. Friend said, I hope that he will give support to the idea of an airlift. This is so desperately urgent that we should press for it in every way so that the quickest means may be adopted to bring relief. The events of the last weekend have transformed the situation. My right hon. Friend knows my view. My view was that immediately this became a civil war the Government should have stopped supplies of arms. One of the dangers in this African situation when troubles of this kind arise is that rival Powers step in with arms help. This is very dangerous.
For the moment, I shall not argue that view. I am profoundly glad, as I am sure we all are, that through the agency of the Organisation for African Unity the two sides are to be brought together. I am very glad about the news in the Press

and on the radio today. I believe that it is now possible that they can settle an agenda for the meeting to be held in Addis Ababa. The first thing I am sure they will do is to get a cease-fire. I congratulate Colonel Gowon on agreeing to meet the representatives of the Organisation for African Unity, for there are "hawks" on his side—I have met some —who believed that the way to settle this was to carry on the war and wipe the other side out.
I hope that it is not too late to reach agreement and that the tragedy and bitterness aroused has not gone so deep as to prevent the emergence in some form of a united Nigeria. I am sure that if the war were to continue to the bitter end any hope of a united Nigeria in any form would be out for generations. The bitterness and the hatred would be so deep. All of us who have met people from both sides know how deep and bitter it is. Sometimes we have been shocked by the bitterness shown by young students to each other in this country. All of us who know Nigeria are deeply disturbed about this.
I hope that there will be a cease-fire, but a political settlement will take a long time. One of the essential things before they begin to discuss a political settlement is a long cooling-off period. I am glad that the Organisation for African Unity has taken this matter up and that a settlement by Africans themselves seems possible. I am glad that this Organisation is developing, for it can enable Africans themselves to solve these problems. If they can solve them themselves that will be better than rival Powers outside coming in.
I therefore express the fervent hope that there will be a cease-fire and a period during which no attempt will be made to decide the future of Nigeria. I put it to a representative of Biafra here, "Are you prepared to say that you do not exclude in the future a united Nigeria?" He answered, "Yes, with one proviso and that proviso is vitally important. Having regard to the experience of the last two or three years I shall never be prepared"—did he use the word "never"?; at least, he said "now"—"to accept that the security of my people, the Ibos, can be entrusted to anyone but a force of our own. "This will be one of the problems. That is


why I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that I hope the Organisation for African Unity will be prepared to co-operate with my right hon. Friend and with other countries in the Commonwealth to have a Commonwealth peace force there.
It will not have a job for two or three months; unfortunately, it may be required for some time. I hope that the Government will give every possible help they can to it. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has done, for what the Hunt mission has done and the recommendations it made. I hope that they will be carried out quickly. I end by again expressing the fervent hope that the talks now taking place in Niger, and which are to take place in Addis Ababa, will result in a cease-fire and that Nigeria will begin to climb the very difficult road back to unity. This is our hope and prayer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do everything possible to help this course.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House will re-echo the good wishes expressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and by the Secretary of State for the success of the conference now under O.A.U. in Niger and later, we hope, in Addis Ababa. As some of us on this side of the House have said, this must remain the main hope for a settlement of this problem.
I cannot express quite the same optimism as seemed to be expressed by the Secretary of State. I think that the whole House and the Government are guilty of having acted too slowly on what has been a major and growing world tragedy in Nigeria especially in that part of it called Biafra. The report we had this afternoon referred hardly at all to what is happening in Biafra, but to what is happening in Federal Nigeria proper. I shall address myself to this problem and also to the problem to which the Secretary of State referred, whether we should now go on with the policy of giving arms when peace talks are actually under way.
It is a sad and sorry tale that as early as April the International Red Cross was

appealing for emergency relief for those suffering from starvation and malnutrition in Biafra. Since then, it is a fair judgment to say that almost no foodstuffs or medical supplies have gone into Biafra in spite of our activities. Only supplies from the Vatican, 400 tons, from the International Red Cross, 160 tons, from the World Federation of Churches, 100 tons have got through, with great difficulty, at great peril to the lives of individual pilots and at great cost.
We talk about the great influence which we have with Lagos. Article 23 of the Fourth Red Cross Convention of 1949, to which Federal Nigeria is a party, provides that it is improper to stop the breaking of a blockade in favour of food and medical supplies for women and children. It is remarkable that this Article of the Convention has not been brought to the attention of the Government in Lagos. What happened to the two Hercules we managed to get off? What happened to the goods from the Red Cross which were going from Lagos and which were then taken off the S.S. "Jaja" and replaced by ammunition? To talk in a spirit of optimism about what is happening would be a great illusion and would be building illusion in the House and in the country.
I turn to one hopeful sign, of the International Red Cross attempting to set up aid inside Biafra, where the greatest agony is being endured. In Nigeria, there are surplus foodstuffs and it is a matter of seeing that foodstuffs are available. In Biafra, there is a desperate shortage, and this is an important distinction. Let us hope, therefore, that everything will be done to make it possible for the Red Cross to set up a demilitarised airstrip and that both sides will agree to this. I hope that the Government will be able to afford aircraft, as we on this side suggested, for such a relief operation from the stores built up outside Federal territory.
I turn to the more difficult problem of arms supply. I suggest that there is a strong case for halting deliveries of arms from this country while the peace talks which have been started by the O.A.U. are in progress. I know that we have an obligation to co-Commonwealth Powers, but when the point has been reached that it is quite clear that an overwhelming victory has been won, the moral principle


comes into play, and the main objective must surely be to avoid what, in technical terms, is known as over-kill, to avoid the massacre or the final destruction of a people. When genocide is threatened, legal obligations, and so forth, fall into a different perspective.
Other countries have thought fit to break their commitment. Belgium and Czechoslovakia, earlier this year, stopped the provision of arms. Holland is a country with interests in Nigeria not unlike ours from a purely commercial point of view. Holland, with Royal Dutch Shell, Philips Lamps, Unilever N.V., Heineken Breweries and other international firms, probably has almost as large a stake as we have, certainly second to ours.
Yet it must be known to the Government that on 9th June of this year the Dutch Government, on humanitarian grounds, stopped all shipments of arms to Nigeria, breaking contracts to ship to Nigeria by 1st July 16 million rounds of small arms ammunition and 5,000 fragmentation rounds for 105 howitzers.
Threats were made against the Dutch Government and Dutch nationals in Nigeria, which I am happy to say, have in no way been fulfilled. In spite of our special historical obligation, whilst these talks are going on Her Majesty's Government should give immediate and urgent consideration to the suspension of further arms shipments.
I must now raise a new point which I have attempted to check today with the Ministry of Defence, but have failed so to do. I think that the House was somewhat surprised when, a few days ago it appeared in the Dutch Press and was then accepted here after a certain amount of denial, that shipments were going on of Saracen armoured personnel carriers to Nigeria. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny my information that a large consignment of Saladin armoured cars is awaiting shipment to Nigeria from Army depots in this country.
The armoured personnel carrier, which is a tracked carrier, can at least be said to be of great use in progressing across dangerous and difficult territory, but, at this time, to ship large numbers of lethal armoured cars would be against the interests of the country and certainly against the interests of humanity, and I

hope that a statement will be made before the conclusion of the debate. I have endeavoured to find out the truth of what I have said from the Department and have failed to do so.
I will give the information I have in detail to the Minister, so that it can be checked. On 15th July a friend of mine, having seen a picture in a Dutch newspaper of a shipment of British military vehicles, asked the War Office for a check on number plates for identification purposes. He was referred to Chil-well, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is the vehicle organisation section of the War Department at Nottingham. There the following conversation took place:
I spoke to a civilian clerk in that section who asked where the vehicles were being disposed of to. I replied that they were being shipped overseas, to Nigeria. To this he replied that he would go and look it up. After a few moments he came back to say, 'They're not amongst the big consignment of Saladins that are waiting to go now.' When asked a further question, he realised that I was not speaking from an internal telephone, as he must, at first, have assumed.
With some knowledge of the way in which unpleasant news has the habit of escaping from military departments, this has all the ring of accuracy. I hope, therefore, that it will be cleared up.
In the name of humanity, it would be foolish to ship instruments of war which would convert corridors of mercy into avenues of massacre. From the point of view of statesmanship, it would be a major folly to complicate further the business of the Organisation for African Unity in the desperate and difficult negotiation taking place in the Niger and later in Addis Ababa. Surely the time has come for this country, in what has been a chain of political, administrative and often moral errors, now to say that enough is enough.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: This has been a very sombre debate. I will not detain the House long, because although we have been affected by the sombre note while listening to previous speakers, I am heartened by the events of the past weekend. I see a gleam of sunshine in the O.A.U. meetings at Niamey.
This is essentially an internecine dispute to be settled by Africans themselves. I am always careful when discussing African affairs, particularly those of a sovereign State and a sister nation in the Commonwealth. I bear in mind, too, that the leader of the Federal forces, General Gowon, is what is termed in American parlance a "dove" and has held back his battalion commanders in the field. If anyone can make for a merciful ending to this bitter, bloody internecine dispute, it is General Gowon.
I no more wish than the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) to see corridors of mercy become avenues of massacre. I want more corridors of mercy. I will return to that in a moment, because I believe that we can have one if we can get the two sides to accept the fairly clear and simple conditions for this corridor. We have now for the first time a Mission which has supplied an authentic firsthand account of what is happening, and I pay my tribute to Lord Hunt and his colleagues.
Each morning, I receive letters and missives about the civil war from many places, not least a publicity firm in Geneva. One knows that in any war, especially a civil war, the first casualty is truth. Therefore, it behoves us to be careful about accepting evidence unless we know that it is factual and honest.
I have listened with great care to the account of Lord Hunt's Mission about millions being in desperate straits and 300 dying daily, and I shall make my comments purely in the context of saving lives.

Mr. Bernard Braine: This figure has been bandied about several times. For the sake of clarity, could it be explained? As I understand it, this is the figure of deaths in one province and not over the affected area as a whole. Would the Commonwealth Secretary confirm that that is so?

Mr. Johnson: I welcome that intervention, because I have heard figures from other reputable quarters, and we have all read figures in responsible newspapers likeThe Times and theSunday Telegraph giving first-hand accounts of situation. This figure seems a very small total.

Mr. George Thomson: It is a reference to the situation found by Lord Hunt in the South-Eastern State. He put forward the figure with all possible reserve. One can only make an estimate of this kind of grisly total.

Mr. Johnson: Before the Mission, my evidence from inside the territory was that the figure was higher. My evidence has come from journalists and others who have come out of the territory east of the Niger. I understand that the area is occupied by Federal forces and is now pacified and stabilised. Many thousands of Ibo peasant farmers are returning to their villages. That is the position which is certified and confirmed by reputable observers.
However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), I am terrified by the fact that though Ibo peasants may be returning, the people who should be in the capital of Enugu are not returning. I refer to politicians, lawyers, army officers and doctors—in other words, the elite of the people who administer and govern the Ibos, whether there be eight million, 10 million or more, as some suggest. Whether or not they are all in Biafra behind the elite who are with Colonel Ojukwu, these leaders are being herded and beleaguered in the Ibo heartland— which is bush. All their cities are occupied by National forces. They have lost their sea gatewayvia Port Harcourt. There is no access for them other than by parachuting food supplies and by the odd aircraft landing. To my mind, this is too costly a method of getting in food and medical supplies.
I have said before what is now confirmed by the Hunt Mission, that it is possible quite easily to get within a few miles of the Ibo eastern lines from Enugu via Awgu and then to the no man's land. That can be done. It is no use anyone denying that it is not possible to get in hundreds of thousands of tons of food by a land corridor, given the co-operation of the Ibo people and Colonel Ojukwu.
I would add my plea to Colonel Ojukwu and his colleagues to allow the International Red Cross to do this. It would help many suffering people and, beyond that, would give us hope for the future following the Niamey Conference and after the Addis Ababa talks.


After this, a cooling-off period is required, whether or not Commonwealth forces are there, to enable these wonderful people, the Ibo, the Yuruba and the Hausa to work together to re-build a peaceful society. Do not let us forget that Nigeria is the largest and possibly the most gifted of all the African states. I have always felt that it is the one African State which could lead the African people against any outside evil influence, whether or not it shelters behind apartheid. It is the only nation which could lead a future African continent.
Turning to the supply of arms, there are of course many "hawks" in the Western forces. There are those who argue that, if the aim is to save the lives of thousands of future gifted citizens who are now dying in their early youth from starvation, the way to do it is to end the war, because that would mean early pacification and the ability to go in and save lives. This is the view taken by some in the West.
Let us not forget today to thank General Gowon. Whether we call him a dove or not, he is holding out against these malign influences, be they Moslem, whether they are Hausa, or whether they are those people who dislike the Ibo because of their past activities. These are the factors with which General Gowon is contending. We should recognise this and pay him tribute for his efforts.
I believe that the British Government have played a not insignificant part in influencing General Gowon in this connection. I believe that this is partly due to our constitutional links and to the fact that we have known as students and otherwise here many of those who are now in power in the Federal Government. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the influence which he personally has brought to bear and which has possibly succeeded in holding back some of the worst excesses which might have happened.
Further, I believe that the fact that we have helped them with arms has played a not inconsiderable part in our being able to be on the inside, so to speak. We are able to play what part we can play as old Commonwealth colleagues and additionally as allies in this internecine

dispute in Nigeria. I say this advisedly. I go further and say that it helped us in some small part to get the Kampala talks going and also to get the visit of the Hunt Commission accepted. All these are positive factors. They have all been leading on to a mellowing and lessening of the tension in Nigeria, to the Kampala talks, and so on.
I now feel—not much safer—but definitely clearer in my mind about the possibilities. Now that the O.A.U. has got the Niamey Conference going, and now that the two sides have said that they will meet in Addis, I believe that there is hope at this stage. Without hope we would all perish. I hope and believe that it is possible to have a settlement, because I believe that these fine people in West Africa deserve no better— certainly they deserve no worse—than a settlement leading to a future which will give something to these young people who are suffering such terrible agonies in Eastern Nigeria.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: One factor which has been common to every speech which has been made in this debate so far is that no right hon. or hon. Member has shown any wish or intention to interfere in the political tragedy of Nigeria. The motive of the Opposition in initiating this debate and of every right hon. and hon. Member in taking part in it is to try to do something practical on humanitarian grounds to avert a tragedy which is taking place at the moment and which could in a matter of days, or perhaps weeks, reach monumental proportions.
I should perhaps declare an interest— not a commercial one, but one which might be thought to render me politically prejudiced on one side as opposed to another. I had the privilege for some years to act as an economic consultant to the Eastern Region Government in Enugu. I hope the House will accept, having heard the few remarks which I intend to make, that this in no way influences the view that I hold of the present situation.
I think that this debate is exclusively based upon humanitarian considerations. The concern of the House is as the representatives of a country which for many years has had close links with Nigeria


and which has a very close friendship with the people of all tribes and of all regions in Nigeria who at the moment are involved in one of the most brutal of civil wars, a war which has seen the death of thousands in war and which will probably see the death of many thousands more through starvation.
Indeed, I think that politically the best we can do at the moment is to keep out these issues and hope that the O.A.U., which is now seized of the matter, will have success in the initial talks at Niamey and later in the talks at Addis Adaba.
Last week my colleagues and I contacted the Prime Minister of Canada and asked him whether he would use his influence to achieve three objectives which I think are still essential. The first is; a ceasefire. The second is a recognition by both sides that the Red Cross should have exclusive rights of transit and entry. The third is, if not a halt by all nations to the supply of arms—the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs indicated on 12th June the difficulties, which I recognise—none the less that both sides should declare that they will cease from importing arms from now on. Perhaps this is very difficult to achieve.
I think that very reasonable proposals were contained in a letter published inThe Times on 2nd July and signed by many people who are entitled to be listened to. I would like at this stage to pay a tribute on behalf of my colleagues to the work of Lord Hunt and say that I think that Britain is very fortunate that it can call on people of the calibre of Lord Hunt to give public service.
The terror is that it will not be only those who will die from starvation but those who will live to suffer from its after effects and those who will, for example, as those who are medically qualified will know better than I, suffer from some of the diseases of malnutrition such as—kwashiokor. This may well cause defects of the brain and of the liver which will be with them for the rest of their lives.
If we are to try to get an acceptance by both sides of the priority of getting supplies of food and drugs into these areas, we must try for a moment to

understand the psychology of the Biafrans, who at the moment appear to be resisting the inflow of Red Cross supplies, either through the "avenue of mercy" or through any Federally-assisted supply line. The Biafrans, rightly or wrongly, but I think that we must recognise the psychology, are frightened of an invasion of the heartland of Biafra. They are frightened of a resulting massacre. As 30,000 Ibos were massacred in Northern Nigeria, and as 2 million Ibo refugees have been received in Eastern Nigeria, one cannot say that those fears are wholly groundless. The Biafrans are frightened that there will ultimately be complete subjection by the Federal authorities. All those fears may be thought groundless, but we must recognise that they exist. Only if we can do something to ameliorate those fears can we move forward on the other matters which have been raised.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) who made a very powerful case, about Britain's position in the supply of arms. We are told that Britain is supplying only 15 per cent. of the arms to Nigeria. I am informed that that 15 per cent. represents value and not quantity. Therefore, in so far as that 15 per cent. represents small arms, it is perhaps true to say that of those who have been killed the ratio of British arms is probably as high as 80 per cent. I have also received representations by telegram about the imminent despatch of Saladin cars which it is feared are about to be shipped to Nigeria.
If Her Majesty's Government claim that this continued shipment gives us a special influence—I confess that it is a very strange way to retain friends and influence people, particularly for a Labour Government—I would ask: what assurances have they sought and have they received on those matters which at the moment are of paramount concern to the Biafran people?
On 12th June, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) put forward the concept—he repeated it again today—that there might be an international force, which might possibly be a Commonwealth force, to safeguard the position of the Biafrans. General Gowon


has given a sympathetic response to that, and it may well be a matter on which Her Majesty's Government can give us more information.
What undertakings have the Government sought about the possibility of a cease-fire, which would mean that the refugees who are at present concentrated in the Ibo heartland were safe from further military incursions? If Her Majesty's Government say that they have the right to continue to supply arms in the present quantity because doing so gives them influence, we, by the same token, are entitled to expect that that special influence will produce positive results on the question of a further invasion and the possibility of a massacre, both of which the Biafrans fear and both of which the Federal authorities are at pains to discount. I suggest, therefore, that we ought to be able to secure positive guarantees on those matters.
I shall not comment on the question of the rights of Biafra save to add a word to what the Foreign Secretary said on 12th June, in a carefully reasoned speech in which, I thought, he showed that he had as much compassion and humanity on this issue as has every other right hon. and hon. Member. I hope that it will never be thought that we are expressing an opinion on what the future federation or pattern in Nigeria should be. We are the last people to lay down the law about federations, having strewn federations about the world, many of which have had subsequently to be dismembered and the penultimate of which led in part to U.D.I. in Central Africa.
I re-echo the appeal made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, that the main object at this moment must be to send supplies through to people who are starving, wherever they be. Any leader, whether Federal or Biafran, who unreasonably fails to grant transit to the Red Cross for bringing in these supplies will invite the hostility of the world. I very much hope that the land route from Awgu will be accepted by the Biafrans. General Gowon has made a significant statement in regard to the possibility of an airlift, an internationalised Red Cross airlift, and I hope that that will be supported.
I tentatively put forward the suggestion that, if there is an element of suspicion about loading of supplies at Fernando Po, there might, perhaps, be neutral observers provided by Nigeria, from both Biafra and the Federation. All these are matters to be gone into, but if there is good will on this issue, I believe that the humanitarian problem can be tackled. We shall not succeed, however, until the very real suspicions and fears on the part of Biafrans, some of which, I accept, are groundless, are removed.
On the latter question, I say only that people do not go into civil war unless they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have real grievances. It is, therefore, a matter of psychology; we must try to understand what it is that prevents Colonel Ojukwu at present from allowing the mercy missions to go through. I hope that we can overcome his objections so that the best thing can be done for his people.
I am convinced that it is wrong for this country to continue to supply arms. It may be said that we had some influence at Kampala, in the Hunt mission, in getting talks going in London and in assisting the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, but I regard that as hardly compensation for the very high price of a continued supply of arms which are being used to kill people in the field and civilians in their villages. I hope, therefore, that the British Government will cease the supply of arms in the new situation. Now that the O.A.U. itself is to call on all nations to stop the supply of arms we must give a lead in this respect. At the very beginning, perhaps, there may be have been some justification, but in the situation of a civil war, it is one of the most amoral acts of any Government since the Second World War. I regard it as a disgrace to this country, and I hope that we shall stop supplying arms at once.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts. I hope that the O.A.U. will be successful. But I implore the Government to recognise that, if we have any special influence, it must be used to remove the doubts in the minds of Biafrans who, perhaps reasonably, perhaps unreasonably, are holding up the possibility of a settlement, on the limited


front of getting supplies moving, through very real fears which we must try to remove.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: I entirely agree with everything said by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), particularly in his demand that this country stop supplying arms and in what he said about the need for relief. The question of relief has preoccupied the minds of most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate so far. Last week, the Prime Minister used a graphic phrase about getting food into the bellies of starving babies. Clearly, this must be the first priority. But the British Government will agree, I am sure, that the priority need is to get the food equally to people on both sides. We have heard a good deal from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about relief for the Federal-held territories, but, alas, there is still little to report about relief for Biafra.
We cannot entirely separate the question of the supply of arms from the question of relief. If we are trying to send relief to everyone who is suffering, as we should be, our ability to get relief to one side is severely restricted by our policy of supplying arms to the other. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman made his point about the 15 per cent. of Federal arms which are British. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding here. The right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the 15 per cent. is in money terms, and, since the war is primarily an infantry war fought on the ground, these are just the weapons which we are supplying from this country—rifles, machine guns, armoured personnel carriers and, perhaps, armoured cars. We should remember that.
The Government should not be surprised that, because of their policy of supplying arms, they met with a "No" from Biafra when it was suggested that Lord Hunt should go to Biafra to talk about official British Government aid which the British Government want to supply. I am sure that many hon. Members feel that it was disappointing that Lord Hunt did not, in fact, go to Biafra. The Biafrans would have been willing to see Lord Hunt if he had been able to talk about wider matters, if he had

been able to talk about possible airlifts, possible corridors and the sort of inspection which would be involved. But, because Lord Hunt appeared to be able, and to be briefed, only to talk about the official British £250,000 worth of aid, the Biafrans were not ready to receive him.

Mr. George Thomson: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Lord Hunt wanted to go to Iboland in order to discuss precisely those matters. He was not at all inhibited by his terms of reference.

Mr. Barnes: Then it may be that there is not sufficient understanding in London of the Biafran attitude to negotiations of this kind at any given time. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. Whatever the Biafrans may have said about their readiness to receive Lord Hunt, they have certainly made clear that they were willing to receive voluntary supplies from Oxfam and the Red Cross if they could get them. It is here that I feel that the efforts of the British Government to get the supplies moving have proved so disappointing. There is now a tremendous stock-pile of food at Fernando Po. The director of Oxfam told me the other day that it is approaching 3,500 tons. There is also a very large stock-pile of food at Lagos. All the experts who have got into Biafra, like Mr. Kirkley, the director of Oxfam, have stressed the need for immediate relief, because this is the time of year when food is at its shortest supply in that part of the country, and also when it is most costly. In a month or so more food will be available, for the harvests will have come. That is why the air lift was so crucial two or three weeks ago, when it was in the news, and why it will continue to be so crucial for another three or four weeks.
Therefore, the British Government must accept, if they want to aid the situation and relieve the starvation on both sides, that they will be able to relieve starvation in Federal-held territories with their official supplies through Lord Hunt and through Lagos, but that with the present stalemate the best chance of getting relief into Biafran-held territory is to channel it through the voluntary organisations, to make it possible for organisations like Oxfam and the Red Cross to get it in.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: How?

Mr. Barnes: I shall say how it can be done. Let us come to the question of the Hercules aircraft, on which two or three weeks ago Oxfam had an option from a company. It was available to ferry between 60 and 80 tons of food a day, by daylight, from Fernando Po direct into Biafra. There were air strips on which it could have landed. The only thing that made it impossible for Oxfam to get that food in was that the Federal Government were not willing to give safe passage by day to the aircraft.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in the Northern Province of Benue, a traditional supplier of food to the Ibo heartland, there is a great deal of food which needs only to be run in by truck, and which the northerners are desperate to sell to their traditional markets. This would only require agreement between the two frontline commanders. Our problem is to bring those commanders together and get them to allow the passage of trucks down perfectly good roads. It is not a question of aircraft, and it could be done now.

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend knows the country well, and I am sure that he is right. But a great deal of food available in Nigeria and parts of Biafra is basically carbohydrates. The great need at present is for protein. People on both sides are dying through lack of it, and this may not be quite such an easy matter.
On the question of the Oxfam aircraft, at one time it appeared that the British Government were trying to get the agreement of the Federal Government to allow the aircraft to fly by day, but about three weeks ago the news came through that this permission was not forthcoming. The Federal Government said that if the aircraft flew they would treat this as violation of their air space, and it would be shot down.
Judging from the Answers Ministers have subsequently given when questioned about this, I am not convinced that it was ever seriously put by the British Government to the Federal Government that they should allow safe passage to the Oxfam Hercules. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with this. I think that part of the difficulty was that the British Government were not too well-informed

about the air strips where the aircraft could land. At one time my right hon. Friend referred to grass air strips. There are several tarmac airstrips in Biafra, one of which is longer than the air strips at Enugu and Port Harcourt, and could take very large aircraft. This lack of communication with the Biafran side is very serious.
Last Tuesday my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) put a Question to my right hon. Friend asking if he would make a further statement on the progress of British initiative to achieve a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Nigeria. My right hon. Friend replied:
I have nothing to add at present to my statement to the House on 2nd July. It appears from Colonel Ojukwu's public statements that he is not yet prepared to take up the opportunity which I am convinced exists for meaningful contacts between the two sides about a return to the negotiating table."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July 1968; Vol. 768, c.200.]
On Monday the Biafrans handed in to the Commonwealth Secretariat a letter indicating that they were prepared to resume peace talks immediately anywhere. I am informed by the Biafran Office in London that a copy of that letter was sent to Lord Shepherd, but on Tuesday my right hon. Friend gave Answers which seemed to show that the British Government's assessment of the Biafran negotiating position on any given point was based on what Colonel Ojukwu had said three or four weeks ago at a public rally in Biafra for internal consumption.
On the same day it was clear from Answers to Questions which I put that the British Government were not aware of two Biafran suggestions for alternative corridors—a water corridor up the river Niger to Oguta or a land corridor from Port Harcourt. On Monday Dr. Okigbo, one of the Biafran leaders, was in London. He gave a Press conference and made those two alternatives plain, but somehow this information had not got through to the British Government. The Biafran Office is manned by Mr. Kogbara who took part in the peace talks at Kampala and, I believe, has now gone to Niamey and will go to Addis Ababa. There are people in London, or passing through, with whom the British Government could maintain contact and get much better information


of what the Biafrans would accept and are prepared to do at any time. It is a great pity that diplomatic protocol should appear to be a barrier to meaningful contacts of this kind. Before my right hon. Friend labels Colonel Ojukwu as intransigent I wish he would take more pains to find out what has been said at any given time.
But the question of relief and the need for it is really only a symptom of the war, and the main need must remain a cease-fire. A very serious military situation now exists between Nigeria and Biafra. It is quite clear, as it has been for some time, that there is a big buildup of arms and military equipment going on on the Federal Government side. It is justified by the Federal Government in the following terms, and I have also heard it justified by some hon. Members in the same way. The argument is that the quickest way to save starving Biafrans is for the remaining Biafran towns to be taken as quickly as possible by Federal troops so that the war can be won. Then, the argument goes, Oxfam, the International Red Cross, and other relief can go in. A more sophisticated version of the argument is that the best way to get the land corridor from Enugu working is for it to be opened up by force so that relief can go through.
Such an argument totally underestimates the determination, rightly or wrongly, of the people remaining in the Biafran-held area to fight to the last man and the last bullet, and the death-roll if such a military solution were added to the colossal starvation figures. I was glad that a correction was made on the 200 or 300 which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement. It was not a figure for the whole country but just for the south-east part.

Mr. George Thomson: I am as fallible as anybody else. I was very fallible over the grass air-strips, and I admit my fallibility. But I did not mislead the House about the 200 or 300. I said that they were in the south-eastern region.

Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend misunderstands me. I was about to make the point that there had been reports from the Red Cross that 3,000 people a day are dying from starvation in Biafra. I was merely referring back

to the correction that was made. I understood my right hon. Friend's opening statement originally in the sense in which he meant it. I was just making the point that I was glad that the correction had been made.
If such a military solution were to be resorted to at this point in time, added to the colossal figures of people dying from starvation, there would be many more who would die as a result of the fighting. One must remember that the fighting would be most severe in and around the remaining Biafra towns— towns like Aba—where there are already many hundreds of refugees concentrated. So a final military solution to this tragic problem must at all costs be averted. It is something to which Britain ought to be applying her influence—such as it is at the present time—to avert.
What appears to be happening is that, as the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said—and the point was made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) —at a time when this build-up is going on on the Federal side and when we should be restraining them, Saracens and perhaps Saladins are going from this country. If I cared more about the niceties of Parliamentary procedure and the integrity of answers given to Parliamentary Questions, I suppose I should ask for some explanation of the Answer that I got to a Question last week when I was told that the Saracens in this shipment were not armoured fighting vehicles. If the words "armoured fighting vehicles" mean anything, that is what they are, because they can carry machine guns and are armoured and are ideal for fighting in the terrain in which the war is being waged.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have listened with the greatest respect to everything that my hon. Friend has said. But if it is right that a final military solution is the worst alternative that faces Nigeria and the final military solution is in the hands of the Nigerian Federal regime, how does my hon. Friend think it will help towards avoiding that final military solution if we throw our influence against their régime by withdrawing the supplies of British arms?

Mr. Barnes: Deciding to stop arms would have been a difficult decision to


make whenever it was taken. The importance about it would have been its timing. Many of us believe that in months past there have been several points in time when a decision to stop supplying arms could have been the catalyst which would have brought about a cease fire and the cessation of arms supplies from many other countries. It is not an easy matter. But the policy of supplying arms is, I believe, basically wrong. If the situation is to be put right, I agree with my hon. Friend that the timing of the decision to change the policy is important.

Mr. Frank Judd: Could my hon. Friend demonstrate that the timing would be right now?

Mr. Barnes: It depends on the extent to which one believes that in this country we are still in a position to exercise any influence over the Nigerian Federal Government. This is the question. For many weeks I have been extremely doubtful whether we have this influence and whether we ever had it. A much more logical explanation of British policy —there are many inconsistencies in British policy—on this matter is that it is totally committed to the Nigerian Federal Government's point of view. If this is the case, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to say so. It would be more honest to spell it out. I also believe that if this is the policy and he said so, he and his right hon. Friends would not have been involved in so many of the semantics, apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in which they have been involved as a result of following this basically illogical policy.
If that is not the policy—it seems as if it is, but I sincerely hope that it is not —and if the policy now is genuinely to try to meet the great humanitarian need which exists on both sides of the fighting lines, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to go out to Lagos and use all the influence that he has there, on the one hand, to restrain the Federal Government from a final military solution, and, on the other hand, to get the relief supplies moving in.
On the question of relief—I come back to the point which has occupied the minds of so many hon. Members in this debate—I believe that it has been a

game of shadow boxing. It is a pity that there has not been someone there to act as, perhaps, the chairman of an international relief committee or someone who could have said "Federal Government, you will not accept this way of doing it. How would it be if you had observers on Fernando Po? Would you agree to the Biafrans having observers? "There should have been someone there able to put another proposition whenever an objection was raised. This is what is needed to ensure that the relief gets through.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to use all the influence that he has in these matters on the relief side and especially in restraining the Federal Government from a major military offensive, which seems very much in the offing.

5.46 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: I have the privilege of knowing Nigeria, at any rate the Northern territories, fairly well, because I have been there a number of times. A few years ago a company with which I was then connected sponsored a nutritional conference at Ibadan at the request of a dedicated Irish doctor, Dr. Collis. To show that it was not a commercial enterprise, all my company's competitors and anybody else who could contribute useful advice were invited to attend. Addressing the conference were a number of distinguished medical men and nurses, who were distressed then at the starvation in northern Nigeria. So starvation in Nigeria is by no means new.
At that time the starvation was the result of lack of education on the part of the average Nigerian about food values, lack of money and lack of getting the story over that the children needed more protein. Everybody did what they could. In spite of this, the hospital at Ibadan, in the words of Dr. Collis, was every morning like a casualty clearing station with swollen, pot-bellied children with tiny little arms and tiny little legs dying of starvation, and there were, of course, many hundreds more dying in their own homes because there was no room in Ibadan hospital for them. This was due to ignorance and a lack of education about the type of food that was necessary. So the problem existed in a very big way before the civil


war started, but, of course, the civil war has exacerbated the position.
It was with that experience that I had the temerity to write to the Prime Minister and make certain suggestions to him. I go only briefly into the suggestions that I put before him. One was that, through other circumstances which may appear to be rather fantastic but were not perhaps as fantastic or stupid as they may have sounded, I thought that Colonel Ojukwu would be prepared to receive a delegation of two or three people who might be acceptable to him for special reasons to talk about the problems of opening up the line of communication for the supply of food. As yet, I have not had a reply from the Prime Minister, but I hope that the suggestions which I sent to him in the middle of last week will be considered, because they were made seriously and with great sincerity and without any desire for commercial gain or advantage.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: There has been a remarkable pattern about this debate. There has been complete unanimity between the two Front Bench speakers. Yet, with one exception, every back bench speaker has taken a different view. I grow a little uneasy and uncertain about the correctness of views when I see such unanimity between the two Front Bench spokesmen.
I do not take any pleasure in saying what I propose to say. Until the British Government stops the sale of arms to Nigeria, there is blood on its hands. This is not the intention, but it is the result. This weekend I spoke to a Biafran lady in Manchester who has seven children of whom she has not heard for 12 months because communications are broken. She told me what she thinks about things. Let us put ourselves in her position. She sees the photographs in the newspapers of the starving children. Her children are probably starving. Then she is told that the British Government are supplying arms to the other side. What is her natural reaction? One can imagine what the Biaf-rans are feeling in their own country.
The supplying of arms to one side invalidates us as peace-makers and discredits our attempts to get aid through. If we stop the supply of arms, we shall be in a better position to do both things. Everybody in the House profoundly hopes that the peace talks in Addis Ababa will

succeed. As one who is not an adherent of either side, I appeal to the leaders on both sides for a cease fire. If the talks succeed, the Federal Government do not need our arms. If the talks do not succeed, it is all the more vital that we should not send British arms to add to the carnage. If the threatened penetration of the Ibo heartland takes place, one of the main instruments will be British Ferret vehicles.
I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). We probably disagree on everything, and yet I could not disagree with a single word of his speech on this issue. If his reference to Salad ins is correct, there will be serious trouble from both sides of the House, and, in my view, deservedly so.
The Nigerian war provides the classic case for a ban on the sale of arms abroad. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) has devoted a great deal of his life to this question. He will never find a better illustration for his case than the one we are dealing with today. One by one, the other Governments, to their credit, have said "No" unilaterally—the Belgians, the Czechs, and now the Dutch. The Russians are doing the same as we are doing: they are selling arms. But I understand from a contact that Lord Brockway has made that they would agree to stop selling arms if we stopped our arms deliveries immediately.
I have heard from a very high quarter that perhaps we could deal with the Russians but that the Portuguese might cheat. I do not accept that we could not stop them from cheating. The Portuguese are far more susceptible to British pressure than some of the other Governments with which we are dealing. We should know in Lancashire, because goods made in Portugal by sweated labour are coming into our country. Stopping their import is just one way in which we could exercise pressure on Portugal. There are many ways in which we could bring Portugal to heel if it cheated in this respect.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) thought that we had influence by maintaining our supply of arms. He mentioned 12 per cent. The figures of 15


and 25 per cent. have been mentioned. We are not supplying planes, but, apart from that, we are supplying the overwhelming majority of the arms going to the Federal Government. The right hon. Gentleman's argument about influence might have been justified if we had stopped the tragedy from happening. But it has happened. We have failed to have any influence. The starvation is taking place; the massacres have taken place. How can we say that by supplying arms we have maintained our influence?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why does my hon. Friend think that the Federal Government forces stopped at the outskirts of the Ibo heartland? Why should not they have pressed on, as they had the military might to do?

Mr. Allaun: Not because Britain was supplying arms.

Mr. Lyon: What evidence does my hon. Friend have for saying that?

Mr. Allaun: What evidence does my hon. Friend have for his assertion? We are supplying arms to one side. Presumably they are useful to them, or they would not have received them. If we stop the supply of arms and get the other nations to do the same—and we are not in a position to get the supply of arms stopped jointly unless we do it individually—surely we shall be in a position to bring pressure on both sides, particularly on the Federal Government, who are in the attacking position. That seems logical to me.
Pope Paul has recently said that the Roman Catholic Church—I speak as a non-Catholic—has managed to make 30 deliveries of food by air. That is greatly to its credit. It does not seem greatly to our credit that, according to the Minister, we have managed to make only one delivery by Hercules or that we have not yet found a way of delivering supplies of food and medical materials.
I understand the British Government's position. They are opposed to the Bal-kanisation of the African States, and so am I. I do not think that splintering is helpful in any country or continent. But Englishman who has been out there for many years who says that the bitterness I have recently seen a letter from an

is now so great that it is impossible to expect, or even hope for, a return to the previous position and, in particular, that the Biafrans, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) said, will refuse any policing by security troops provided by the Federal Government. Who can blame them? They fear that it would lead to massacres, and it would be wrong for us to force them to rely on them.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the bitterness extends to the minorities in Biafra? They are bitterly opposed to a Biafran solution, and one can meet their representatives here to check on the strength of their opposition. One must, therefore, be careful in using this term. The bitterness exists within Biafra as well as outside it.

Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that among the 12 million to 14 million people in Biafra there is a minority of non-Ibos. I appreciate the fears of the minority within the minority. I am not suggesting that the security forces should be armed Ibos, but it would be wrong to expect, as a term for peace, that we put Federal troops in the Ibo heartland. That is my point.
I think that if we have some responsibility for the Vietnamese war, we have a far greater responsibility for the Nigerian civil war, because we are involved in sending arms there, whereas we are not, thank goodness, sending arms to Vietnam.
The Government have been appealed to by back benchers on both sides. I have been a member of two all-party deputations to the Minister. Our appeals have been rejected, just as the speeches made this afternoon have been rejected. Presumably the advice given by civil servants is accepted. That advice does not seem to have produced very good results so far, and it is time that the elected Members of this House were listened to far more carefully in this terrible situation.
I conclude by appealing to the Government to take action on four matters. First, there should be a public call for a cease-fire. It is remarkable that the British Government have not yet made a public call for a cease-fire. Secondly, we should unilaterally and immediately stop supplying arms to the Federal Government. Thirdly, we should call on the


four other Governments who are supplying arms to stop doing so immediately. Lastly, we should press Gowon to provide security for the air transportation of food and medicine under the supervision of the International Red Cross.
This afternoon my right hon. Friend said that he hoped that Colonel Ojukwu would agree to the supply of food by road. I do, too, but there is far greater force in the British Government appealing to Gowon to allow air supplies to go in now, because this can produce quicker results. Those are four suggestions which the Government should adopt to relieve the present tragic situation.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). In his mind, and he believes in the mind of Colonel Ojukwu, arms and food are muddled up, but it must be remembered that on quite a number of aeroplanes carrying food to the Biafrans, arms were also carried, and there therefore seems to be some logic in the argument of the Federal Government that at least those shipments should be inspected.
I am on record, as long ago as the beginning of last August, as urging the Government to put an embargo on arms to both sides. Had we done so, possibly tens of thousands of lives might have been saved, but the situation is very different now that the Federals are poised for victory. I agree that while the discussions go on the shipment of arms might be stopped, but let us imagine what will happen if Ojukwu is intransigent. Friendly though I have been to many Ibos in the past, he may well be recalcitrant. But this war must be ended and food must be taken in whatever politics the leaders of the Ibo happen to want to play. If the talks do not succeed, we must continue shipping arms.
I ask the hon. Member for Salford, East to remember what happened to the arms from the other countries which put on an embargo. The Dutch and the Swedes have kept their word, but I am told that France has continued to consign arms to that country, and so have Belgium and Czechoslovakia, possibly to both sides. I am told that there is no

control whatsoever over the supply of second-hand arms, and these are often as lethal as those which have just been made.
I detected a somewhat pro-Ibo feeling in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He seems to think that they alone have suffered, and that their cause is completely right. I have many Ibo friends. Only about three weeks ago, I had lunch with a Member of Parliament from the Eastern region of Nigeria. Three days before seccession he argued in the House of Assembly at Enugu against that action. He was an Efik from Calabar, and shortly after that he found himself in detention. Along with three hundred other Efiks he was taken out and he saw most of the people with him machine-gunned to death. He was lucky The bullets kept low, and he and one other man escaped. This is the horror of civil war. A war is bad enough but civil war is much worse. It is the worst of all kinds of war, and it is no good arguing that one side is better than the other. Let us forget what has happened and concentrate on the present and on the future.
When one of my Federal friends heard that we were going to debate Nigeria, which he said rightly was an independent member of the Commonwealth, he commented that he hoped when they returned to Parliamentary government we would have no objection if every three weeks or so they discussed race relations in Great Britain. But, as I see it, we have every right to argue whether arms should go to Nigeria from this country, or whether people and aid should be sent there.
I believe that the supply of arms should be controlled, and they will have to be controlled in future by a Commonwealth force. If the Commonwealth is to mean anything, I hope that under the Secretary General we shall establish some form of Commonwealth force to which, in the end, the Ibos can look for protection. It may, however, be years before they really feel that they can live in freedom without the fear of being massacred.
I hope that the force to which I have just referred will be the prototype of something very much greater. I believe that the Ibos hate Britain to such an extent that they would not like a British


contingent there, but there is certainly no reason why such a contingent should not be on the Federal side. I hope that Britons will be allowed to volunteer for such a force. I think that it should be about two brigades strong, so that it will not threaten anybody. Its duty would be to protect the International Red Cross which would be the agent for distributing food. It could also be used to protect the Ibo people.
I now come to the question of foodstuffs. There has been much talk about airlifts. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many airstrips remain to the Ibo people, shut in as they are in a territory no bigger than the West and North Ridings of Yorkshire—a people more numerous than the whole population of Scotland, entirely surrounded by Federal territory. Have they a spare airstrip to offer to the International Red Cross? If so, that airstrip should be demilitarised. If the Biafrans continue to send arms in the Federals will have every right to bomb that airstrip. Therefore, any airfield under the control of the Red Cross must be demilitarised so that it will not be bombed either by day or by night.
I want to make one suggestion to the Minister. There are many river fleets owned by West African companies. In the past they have travelled up the Niger and Benue right up as far as Yola and Gardua in the Cameroons and have brought back thousands of tons of groundnuts and other feedingstuffs. In large measure these fleets are still available to go on routes from places like Burutu Sapele and Warri across the Niger. Why should not they be painted white with red crosses and work irrespective of Bailey bridges or roads which have been blown up? They should be able to get across, although I am told that there may still be pockets of Ibo resistance west of the Niger. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. Colonel Ojukwu should be in control, even of his outlying units. It is up to him to tell those West of the Niger to let the food cargo fleet go through.
We must have crash action in feedingstuffs for the people on both sides whom we know so well. This mission

of mercy could be undertaken by the Commonwealth. It is not a short-term project. Colonel Ojukwu may think that because he has been recognised by the Governments of Zambia, Tanganyika, Gabon and the Ivory Coast he can rely on them for protection, but where are their legions of spare soldiers to help him in his hour of need? I hope that he will accept the reality of the situation and appreciate that in this tiny enclave in which millions of his people live he could not hope to thrive even if he got independence.
The Ibos must trade; they depend on Nigeria, and there must be some form of association between the two. I hope that Colonel Ojukwu will see sense, and that the Niger, at present dividing two peoples who have traded with each other for so many years will, very soon, once again unite those peoples, both of whom have been so friendly to Britain.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Joha P. Mackintosh: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) with his deep knowledge of Nigeria and the situation there. I deeply respect the feelings of hon. Members who have spoken, and share them. None of us, with our own children looking at us across the Sunday breakfast table and seeing the sort of picture of a starving Ibo child that we saw on the front page of theSunday Times yesterday could feel anything but horror and alarm.
Nevertheless, although we have these deep feelings we must realise that this is fundamentally a Nigerian problem. I am amazed at the impression of some of my hon. Friends who seem to think that a single word from the British Government would end the tribal hatreds that have existed in Nigeria for generations and which have caused them to fight each other in the past, not with machine guns or Saracens, but, almost as horribly, with machets and sharpened agricultural implements. This was done in the riots in Kano, during the Tiv riots and the massacres at Ibadan a few years ago. We know how these feelings have generated. Those who have watched the situation in Nigeria have seen this thing building up over the years, with the Ibos and their rivals struggling with


each other and amongst each other on the question whether Nigeria shall be organised on a non-tribal basis or in tribal units.
We must be fair; when the Ibo leadership discovered a major oilfield in the area that they could claim they realised that they had the economic resources to go for a state organised on a tribal basis, the only difficult factor being that 5 million non-Ibos live in the oil-bearing area and the ports which an Ibo State would need.

Mr. James Griffiths: My hon. Friend will appreciate that after independence, when the Federal Government was formed, the Ibos from the East joined it. It was those in the West who offered opposition.

Mr. Mackintosh: My right hon. Friend will know that at that time when the Federation was formed the most ardent Federalists in Nigeria were the Ibos, because they lived in a poverty-stricken area which needed Federal funds. It was only when the oil was discovered and the financial situation in the Eastern region was transformed that the leadership there felt that the situation had changed. That was not the sole cause of their desire to secede, but it offered a way out of the long-term frictions that had reached their climax in the pogroms in the North in 1966.
I am sorry to go over this history but it is necessary for my hon. Friends who say that if we had done this or that we could have easily got a cease-fire. Such a simple decision to have a cease-fire was rejected by both sides in Nigeria because they wanted to know on what terms the cease-fire would come about. The Biafrans want to know whether they will be recognised as an independent territory. The West wonder what would be left for them in a Northern-dominated Nigeria. Those who live in the North are wondering whether that territory would be better as one or three states. It must be remembered that there are 47 separate linguistic groups in Nigeria. Many of the Nigerians, on both sides, have asked whether human rights and the future freedom of the people in this part of Africa will be better safeguarded with a small number of chauvinistic tribal groupings, each with a minority within its borders—

because they could not construct any state without a minority—or a large Federation trying, somehow, to reconcile and meet these points.
All this may still be a long way from helping the dying and starving people in the East of Nigeria but if those of us trying to mediate in this country try to get the Biafrans and members of the Federal Government in London to meet to talk about the situation we find that they are not very bothered about starving children—and I am not accusing them of callousness. They are concerned with a deeper matter—the basic question of the terms on which the war can be brought to a conclusion. Some hon. Members imagine that it needs only the British Government to say, "No more weapons: it is all over", for the war to end. They are mistaken. A great deal of damage could still be done. It would not help if simply to cut off the supply of arms but this is also a point on which one must look at the historical background.
I believe it was right that the British Government should have trained and equipped the Nigerian Army originally. I take off my hat to General Sir Welby Everard who trained the Nigerian Army —then a small force of 10,000 men—on a non-tribal basis. They were brought up to be Nigerians and not members of this or that group. Nothing upset me more than to hear of the treatment of Colonel Nzeogwu, the original army leader of the army coup in the North because he was an Ibo who was basically not for tribalism. He was murdered after his eyes had been gouged out by the Biafrans —or rather his fellow Ibos. The officers in the army originally had the idea of unity and detribalisation in Nigeria, but then after the pro-Ibo régime of General Ironsi, the army broke up into its tribal segments. The position of the British Government was correct up to the point at which they trained the army and supplied it with equipment and munitions, because it was a force for stability and order in Nigeria.
The question arises, first, could we have altered matters by stopping the supply of arms, and, second, would this have produced the kind of essential detribalised unitary state in Nigeria which would have been the best guarantee of human liberty? I take the point that it is not our place to determine wh at


goes on inside Nigeria—this would be far too paternalistic and old-fashioned an attitude—but we must say what the British Government should do about this. Although we do not have the tremendous influence which some Government Members have suggested—and, I think, which has been over-estimated by some of my hon. Friends—if the Nigerians on both sides wanted to get food into the East tomorrow, they could do so. The province of Benue is full of food, and it cannot sell its harvest. This does not require the Red Cross or 'planes or anything but the officers on two fronts on each side to agree and to allow food to pass through their lines.
This is a war of elites and the Ibo elites around Colonel Ojukwu know that, if the Federal Government win, they and their families will be stripped of everything. This was done in peacetime, when the Action Group elite lost in a peacetime coup in the Western Region; they and their connections and their families and their villages were stripped of everything. The university appointments, the Government contracts and every job changed hands. This is what the Ibo elite will have to face if Colonel Ojukwu loses. We must try to inject flexibility into the situation by means of the tiny amount of influence which we have.
The British Government's stand has left them with some talking points with the Federal Government, but we should not over-estimate them. If we push it too far, we will be told to take our arms and chase ourselves. After all, they have enough to finish the job.

Mr. Barnes: But for months past, this policy has been emphasised and, if we expressed doubts about supplying arms, we were told that it was because we were maintaining this influence. My hon. Friend should not be surprised, therefore, if some of us accepted this and and are now worried.

Mr. Mackintosh: I agree, and I said that some Members of the Government over-estimate their influence, but they are listened to, up to a point, by the Federal Government.
There is an Ibo élite in contol in Biafra. This is not a guerrilla war of peoples but a war of elites for certain key posts of influence and power. We

must try to persuade the Federal Government that if they win or a cease-fire comes on terms which mean victory in practice, that they will so arrange those terms that they do not mean a crushing humilitation for the Ibo élite. Second, we must persuade them that there should not be trials. That is not our business, but if we were Colonel Ojukwu, would we have a cease-fire when we knew what it would mean—the firing squad? I have read that Colonel Ojukwu has taken physical action and has shot people whom he regarded as traitors, but who were loyal to the Federal Government. One can understand the pressure on the Federal Government not to let these people down if they win.
Therefore, there is a critical problem of trying to get the Federal Government, somehow, to ease its terms, to give some security to an élite which, basically, it would like "rubbed out". This is a major difficulty. We cannot do a great deal about it and it is a mistake to indulge in hyperbole about the British Government having the power to alter totally the face of Ibo—Yoruba—Hausa relations which have had their difficulties and tensions in ways that we in Europe, with our generations of French and German and other wars, have no right to criticise, for hundreds of years. We can help, but cannot do all that much. I hope we use our influence on these points that may ease the way towards a ceasefire.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The whole House will agree that this has been a thoughtful, constructive and, at times, moving debate. It was much helped at the outset by the Commonwealth Secretary's factual statement. He did a great deal to clarify what has hitherto been a most confusing situation. The debate has also reflected, in every speech, I think, the grave disquiet felt in all quarters of the House and throughout the country. But it still leaves unanswered a number of important questions.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has just made a most interesting speech, and one of the truest things he said was that we should not deceive ourselves. Words spoken here, however well chosen, may express our horror at what has been happening and our frustration at not being


able to bring succour to the afflicted as swiftly and on the scale which we would wish, but they do not in themselves solve the problem. Indeed, if we accept Lord Hunt's estimate, then since the debate began a few hours ago hundreds of people in the war-stricken areas, including many children, will have died of hunger, and many tens of thousands more will perish in the next few weeks.
This is the harsh, grim reality. This tragic situation is all the more distressing to as because it is happening in a country which we, above all others, helped to create, where, until recently, high hopes for a great and prosperous future reposed, and where, in the Christian missions, in the schools and in commerce, so many of our own people are still playing a constructive and honourable rôle long after the endng of the colonial phase. It is natural enough that we should all feel deeply moved by the agony of Nigeria and be impatient to do something about it.
But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said, this is a civil war in a country which we no longer control. We can help by persuading both sides to come to terms and by offering relief, but in the last resort an end to the conflict can come only in one of two ways—either the Federal Army completely crushes the Ibo rebels, with all the dire consequences that must flow from that, or there is a negotiated settlement.
Our impatience is all the more understandable because the movement of relief supplies, which my right hon. Friend said was the first priority, seems to have been hampered less by physical transportation difficulties—great though these are—than by political argument between the two sides. On the one hand, Colonel Ojukwu has said that he will accept air lifts provided the food does not come through Federal Nigeria. The idea has even been spread among his people that food from such sources would be poisoned. On the other hand, the Federal Government have refused permission for direct air lifts into the Ibo heartland because they suspect and not without reason, that the same 'planes which are making clandestine flights by night with food and medical supplies have been carrying arms as well. For the Federal Government, therefore,

logically enough, only a land corridor is permissible.
As a result, the International Red Cross, Oxfam, the World Council of Churches and a host of other dedicated organisations have been literally standing by for months, frustrated, unable to do the job which they are equipped and eager to do. For them, as for the watching world, it has been a heartbreaking experience.
The House will have noted with satisfaction what the Commonwealth Secretary said about the Government's response to the recommendations of the Hunt Mission. I join with all who have paid tribute to the splendid work of Lord Hunt and his colleagues. Even so, a number of serious questions still remain unanswered.
Whatever the reason, the sad fact is that Lord Hunt was unable to enter the Ibo heartland. That was not his fault and we must all commend his readiness to go there if Colonel Ojukwu permits him to do so. This is exactly what we would expect of a man of Lord Hunt's calibre. But has the House been told the whole story of the scale and horror of the famine situation? Lord Hunt considered, on the basis of the best estimates which he had been able to make in the areas which he visited, that one million people are at risk. Does this include the people in the Ibo heartland? He estimated that 200 to 300 are dying each day in the South-Eastern State—an area, I take it, in fact, to the north-east of Calabar. How many people are dying elsewhere? Surely the figures are likely to be very much greater than 200 or 300 a day?
On 8th July the Commonwealth Secretary replied to a Private Notice Question which I had asked him. As to the scale of the famine he said:
I have just had a direct report this morning to say that most of the relief organisations are agreed that the situation around Ikot Ekpene, which is on the Federal side of the line, is now desperate and as bad as, if not worse than, anything in rebel-occupied territory.
I believe that that area is in the South-Eastern State or in that locality. He continued:
It is important to the House to be aware that human need is not simply in the Ibo-held territories, but also on the other side of the fighting line."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 40.]


It is important for us to know, when we are considering what help can be brought to bear on the situation, what is the total scale of the problem—not the problem only in one part of the war-stricken area but in the whole of South-Eastern Nigeria.
I agree entirely with the Commonwealth Secretary that the best chance of an effective distribution of aid is through the International Red Cross in order, if I may use his words, to avoid duplication and misunderstanding. That is a very wise decision, but we still do not know where such distribution is to take place. In the Federal-held areas? In the Ibo heartland when the proposed road corridor is driven through?
But what about the situation now in the Ibo heartland, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred in his most eloquent and moving speech? I beg the Commonwealth Secretary to consider the agonising dilemma which faces the voluntary organisations. A few hours before this debate I was advised that a further 1,000 tons of high-protein food is being sent today to Fernando Po to add to the already quite sizeable stockpile which the International Red Cross has assembled there. At this moment not more than ten tons of this food is being moved by night flights. I am not talking here about other clandestine flights but about what appear to be approved flights under Red Cross auspices each night. These are making a negligible contribution to the problem. I am told from informed sources that if permission were given for day flights, at least 100 tons could be sent in every day and that this would probably meet the most immediate needs. In short, the food is there but day flights are forbidden and night flights are inadequate. I invite the Commonwealth Secretary to state what advice he will give to the voluntary organisations in a situation of that kind.
What is the position about the Federal Government permitting direct Red Cross flights into the Ibo heartland from Fernando Po, landing at Calabar and then taking off after inspection? What has happened to the suggestion which I made about a fortnight ago that one way of getting around the mutual suspicion

would be to grant safe conducts to observers from both sides to accompany every aircraft flying into the Ibo heartland? The Commonwealth Secretary said today that General Gowon has promised that airlifts will be permitted into the Ibo heartland. I was delighted to hear that, and the whole House must have been too. But according toThe Times on 19th July, Colonel Ojukwu has said that he would be prepared to set aside an airport for the exclusive use of relief aircraft and would agree to inspection of cargo by representatives of the Biafran, Nigerian, and International Red Cross to show that no arms were included. That is not unreasonable. What is being done about this proposal? What are the obstacles in the way of supplies being flown in now to the people who need them?
What the Commonwealth Secretary told us this afternoon about political developments is enormously encouraging. A week ago it did not seem possible that General Gowon and Colonel Ojukwu would be prepared to go to the conference table. It is heartening in the extreme that they have taken part in the preliminary talks at Niamey organised by the O.A.U. and that it seems likely that they will go on to further talks at Addis Ababa. Here is the beginning of real hope. For Colonel Ojukwu may now be made to see by other African leaders that bargaining over famine relief in the hope of securing further diplomatic recognition is not only heartless but impracticable. It is heartless because, although he accuses his enemies—I do not say with any lack of sincerity on his part; he may genuinely believe it—of genocide, to the outside world his own actions are suspiciously like suicide for a large part of his people. It is impracticable because secession on a tribal basis is not likely to find much favour with the O.A.U. because it constitutes a threat to the viability of almost every State in Africa.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who knows more about Nigeria than do most of us, that there is very little point about going over the causes of this terrible conflict. It is easy enough to be wise after the event and to argue that, as colonial administrators, we should have left behind us a different Nigeria, one


with 12 or more States based on the country's many ethnic groups and not one of three huge regions, each dominate by a major tribe and the whole dominated by the Muslim North. For that is to ignore what the Nigerian leaders themselves wanted before independence and what they were prepared to accept. One recalls British misgivings at the time. But to have created a different structure would have delayed independence, and the Nigerian leaders were not prepared to wait. With the wind of change olowing as vigorously as it did through Africa in the late 1950's, who is to say that they were wrong?
Equally, it is futile to argue that the conflict began with the bloody coup of the Ibo officers in January, 1966, which preceded the massacre of Ibos in the North six months later. For that is to ignore the long history of tribal rivalry and suspicion which British rule may have contained but which it certainly did not eradicate, and which, after all, is common enough elsewhere in Africa.
What matters now is that the Federal leaders seem determined not to repeat the errors of the past. The abolition of the regions and the creation of 12 or more smaller States does not change the ethnic facts but it gives the minority tribes a bigger share in local administration and it should remove the fear about domination by the Muslim North. Credit should be given to General Gowon for the restraint which he has been exercising in these last stages of the fighting. He now controls the main centres of what used to be the eastern region and also Enugu, the Ibo capital, and he must know that further military advances would drive these brave, vigorous and imaginative people, the Ibos, into the bush and that the guerrilla fighting would be long and bitter and would call for a permanent army of occupation. That would be costly in the extreme and it might even be fatal, as several hon. Members have reminded the House, to the hopes of those who believe that a united Nigeria has a great destiny to fulfil in Africa.
Nigeria needs to win back the Ibos. She needs their skills and enterprise if she is to tackle her problems effectively and fulfil her destiny. What matters now is the possibility of a new start for Nigeria, and the extent to which we in

Britain can contribute to its success by helping to bind up the wounds of her people and to rebuild their shattered economy.
As regards our making a contribution to the bringing of peace to Nigeria, may I make it plain that we support the Government's readiness to contribute to a joint observer force as part of a pacification programme. It is possible that a proposal of that kind will emerge from the talks in Addis Ababa. It is not too early to ask, therefore, what is being done about the preparation of a British contribution to such a force. We recognise that there are some questions which cannot be answered here and now—the size and the composition of the force, the functions which it will be called upon to perform and who is to command it; all those are matters which lie in the future which will have to be agreed between the two sides and will then have to be loyally supported by the contributing powers.
But the thought which I leave with the right hon. Gentleman is that such a force cannot be created overnight. Its mobilisation and movement into the affected areas will take time. Yet we already know that the situation is urgent, that if lives are to be saved and the work of rehabilitation is to begin, not a moment must be lost once the political decision is taken. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to say what preliminary steps the Government have taken to earmark and prepare a British contingent, with all its necessary services—particularly communications equipment, transport aircraft and so on— so that it can move like lightning if and when the call comes.
This debate takes place after many weeks of anxious questioning about the situation in Nigeria. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone said, the voluntary organisations have been battling with unanswerable problems for months past. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Opposition have exercised the utmost restraint in pressing him on these matters. However, I beg him not to misunderstand our attitude. Our purpose has been to avoid making difficulties for the Government while they were negotiating with the Federal authorities, first about the efforts of the voluntary organisations, secondly about the Hunt Mission, and


thirdly, because we do not wish to precipitate a situation where the hawks on the Federal side are encouraged to call for an all-out military effort to crush the Ibos. The Government have known throughout that they would have our full support if they offered transport aircraft, vehicles and so on, to move stocks of food known to exist in Federal Nigeria or Fernando Po. We have recognised the need to help the Federal Government to bring hostilities to an end in a constructive and honourable way, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire made plain we have reservations about the continued supply of arms. Hitherto the Government's case for continuing arms supplies to the Federal forces has been that by this means they can preserve some influence in the situation; that a ban on British arms would not stop arms coming in from elsewhere, and that even if it did the war would continue with bayonet and machete, as long as the will to end it by negotiation was lacking on both sides. Indeed, with stocks of munitions dwindling, the temptation to finish off the war by an all-out military effort might well be irresistible.
There is a great deal in this argument, but the Government's case that they were supplying arms to preserve their influence is from now on going to be brought very severely to the test. Neither we nor the nation could condone the continued supply of arms if large scale fighting were to break out again or if it were suggested in the talks in Addis Ababa that a temporary ban would help. This subject has touched the consciences of all hon. Members. I do not think that any useful purpose is served in our not facing the moral issue. If there were an invasion of the Ibo heartland with the inevitability of mass slaughter added to the present mass starvation it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, for any British Government to continue sending arms.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would it not be too late then?

Mr. Braine: I am not convinced as yet that the Government's policy in this matter is wrong. The onus is on the Commonwealth Secretary to show that the policy of Her Majesty's Government

has resulted in British influence being exerted in a useful way. But in my view the point has now arrived when this nettle must be grasped. Only yesterday a distinguished Nigerian Christian leader told me, sadly—if there was bitterness in his heart he kept it to himself—"Our people have always looked to the British Government for fair treatment, but we see that in this quarrel they have chosen to take sides. We have looked to them for conciliation; instead, they have chosen to provide our enemies with arms. Is it so unreasonable that we should refuse to accept aid from the British Government?". I thought that that was unfair, but it was certainly sincere and honest. One cannot brush it aside.
I am not criticising Her Majesty's Government for the stand they have taken so far. My hon. Friends understand their dilemma, but the Commonwealth relationship has no meaning at all unless in a situation of difficulty of this kind we do not seek a reconciliation of differences. There must come a point when supplying arms to one beligerent makes the solution difficult if not impossible. It is our earnest hope that this point has not been reached, that the talks in Addis Ababa will bring a peaceful settlement and that peace will soon return to Nigeria. But there is no immediate guarantee of that and, in the meantime, hunger takes its toll and people die. The Government have moved quickly in response to the recommendations of Lord Hunt. That is good and the Government are to be commended. But we now need an assurance that the relief programme now being mounted will meet the real needs in all Nigeria. I invite the Commonwealth Secretary to give us that assurance.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: With permission, I will reply to the points made in what has been a very good debate in which hon. Members have shown themselves to be gravely concerned with the situation in Nigeria. I confess that of all the international problems with which I have had to deal, both before becoming Commonwealth Secretary and since being in office, I have found this the most agonising, and I therefore echo some of the words uttered by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) about the nature of the problem we face.
It is not the scale of the war that appals. It is the scale of human suffering.The Times remarked today that
… it is an indication of the small scale of the war militarily that all the prisoners of war in Biafra can be accommodated in one dormitory.
Would that all the prisoners of want—all the prisoners of malnutrition and starvation in this terrible war—could be housed in one hospital ward.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) expressed fears of genocide. It is important to try to get this matter in perspective. My view is that these fears are exaggerated and that it is unjust to talk of genocide in connection with this conflict. The military casualties have been bloody but limited, marred by terrible atrocities. The civilian suffering, on the other hand, has been massive and has affected Ibo and non-Ibo. It is to them that our conscience has been directed. Sir Colin Thornley has told me that near Awgu large numbers of Ibos who have been living in secessionist areas are returning to their homes in Federal-held territory. This does not fit in with allegations of genocide.
None of us can read the harrowing accounts of human suffering on both sides without wishing to do all that we can to assist all Nigerians to find a way to live at peace with each other and concentrate on binding the wounds of the suffering. The whole House will agree with these aims and the necessity, whatever our differences, to address our minds to the question of how best we can achieve them. In particular, we all agree that we should like to see the discussions initiated by the O.A.U. lead to a ceasefire. Her Majesty's Government have tried to help in every way they could to promote talks and Mr. Arnold Smith, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, has worked indefatigably, and will go on doing so, to this end. The best outcome would be, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) pointed out, if Africa's own inter-Governmental organisation could bring about a solution to one of Africa's most tragic conflicts and a conflict which has immense dangers for the Continent of Africa as a whole.
The main criticism during this debate of our policy has been over the difficult

question of the sending of arms to Nigeria. I emphasise again that the arms we send form only about 15 per cent. of Nigerian supplies, and in our view their cessation would not affect the continuation of the war.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) cast some doubt on whether this figure of 15 per cent. was meaningful and said that his calculation was that 80 per cent. of the infantry weapons and ammunition that were causing the casualties were coming from us. I remind the House, first of all, only that it is not so long ago that the anxiety of this House was that we might be providing bombers and those sort of weapons of war, and that we have deliberately limited the arms to the more conventional types of weapon that we have provided over a long period. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought that, with his record of advocacy of the use of force in some other parts of Africa, his expression of abhorrence of force in this case was not quite as convincing as it might otherwise have been.

Mr. Thorpe: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a difference between the use of force against civilians and the use of force against a railway line in a desert.

Mr. Thomson: What I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that his figure of 80 per cent. is not remotely accurate. The proportion of infantry weapons and ammunition we have supplied is calculated by our defence experts to be a great deal less than half of what is going there. I do not wish to minimise the amount, but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 80 per cent. will not gain wide credence.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone asked about Saladins. I should like now to give him and the House the facts as I know them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the case that there are large numbers of Saladins awaiting shipment to Nigeria, as he seemed to fear. The position is that we have always said that we would supply the Nigerian Government with reasonable quantities of arms of a conventional type. In accordance with this policy, there have been supplies of armoured cars to Nigeria since before the civil war broke out. We have been careful

not to add to the armoured car strength since the civil war began, but some months ago a small number of replacements were authorised. It may very well be that it is to those that the right hon. Gentleman's information related. I assure the House that no more have been authorised nor, indeed, have any more been requested by the Nigerian Federal Government.
The practical question in this difficulty is that put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): whether unilateral suspension of arms would help to end the fighting and make the relief supplies flow more easily. I can only say, after the most earnest heart-searching on the matter, that all the evidence at the moment seems to me to be to the contrary. Indeed, in the light of the tense situation that now exists in Nigeria, with the very natural sensitivity about the national sovereignty of a new and developing country, I wonder whether the Hunt mission which we have all welcomed, would ever have been able to do the magnificent work it has achieved if we had followed the urgent demand of some hon. Gentlemen to stop sending arms when they asked us to do so.
I was asked about our influence in Nigeria. I do not want to exaggerate our influence—Nigeria is a proud and sovereign independent country—but it is worth remembering this about the the Nigerian Federal Government. There has been recently, although they are on the edge of a military victory, virtual cease-fire—an act of considerable self-restraint. There has been an acceptance or a willingness to have an external international observer force. There has been a readiness to see that the relief supplies go in by land, and now by air. Can anyone doubt that if at this period of time we had followed the advice of those who urged on us unilateral suspension, these achievements of restraint would not have been at peril? This is the real issue.
But I should like to put to my hon. Friends, whose anxieties I understand perfectly, one or two general points about the supply of arms. I think that some of them start from the unspoken, though perfectly honourable proposition,

that Britain should not engage in arms trade with anyone. It is worth emphasising that in any case our arms trade is very carefully controlled and individually licensed.
But I should like to ask the House and my hon. Friends to examine what the proposition would mean. It would mean that amongst our friends in the world only those who had an arms industry would have a right to national defence. It would mean that to make arms was all right, but to buy them was all wrong. If it is urged simply as a national policy, it means that it is wrong for Britain to help her friends to defend themselves, but all right for Britain's friends—if they remained friendly to us in those circumstances—to get other people to provide them with the necessary defence.
A more limited argument is that it is wrong to provide arms in a civil war situation. A civil war against secession is an agony through which a number of countries have passed. The historic example is the United States, and in those circumstances those of the British Left were very strongly behind the Federal Government of that country in its fight against secession. But more recently in Africa the Congo passed through this tragedy, and I am genuinely puzzled that some of those who argue that Biafra should have the right to secede are those who argued so passionately that it would be a crime if Katanga were allowed to secede.
I do not want to minimise Ibo fears or to ignore Ibo grievances, but I would ask the House whether, if it was right to resist the attempt of sinister outside forces to break up the Congo, it is not also right to help the Government of Nigeria to resist similar attempts against the unity of their country. It is right to remember that we in this country—and particularly those on the political Left— supported the United Nations action in the Congo, and that we helped to pay for United Nations soldiers to go there to fight against secession.
Finally, there are those who argue that it is hypocrisy and humbug to send arms and relief supplies to the same people at the same time. I find this a very puzzling argument. If I may say so to my hon. Friends, whose sincerity I acknowledge, I became involved in politics during the Spanish civil war, when the


British Government of the day supported non-intervention and the Left supported the Spanish Republican Government. But no Socialist ever suggested in those days that there was any inconsistency in gathering money both to strengthen the Republican Army and to succour the victims of war, whatever side they came from.
Of course, the supply of arms must always be watched anxiously to ensure that it is consistent with our policies, and in this case our policies are to see an end to the fighting and to bring maximum help to the suffering.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last month laid down very carefully the circumstances which would require a revision of our arms policy. I do not wish to repeat them just two minutes before the debate is due to end, but those conditions still stand, and are worth examining closely. We believe that none of the circumstances that my right hon. Friend mentioned has come to pass. The Federal Government have responded with great restraint in the search for peace.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East asked some questions about the airlift. First of all, our advice to voluntary societies is to follow the advice of the International Red Cross, backed by Lord Hunt's mission and the Federal Government, to co-ordinate efforts through the International Red Cross and the efforts, particularly, to accumulate stocks at Fernando Po. The hon. Gentleman quoted Colonel Ojukwu as being prepared to see an airstrip in Biafra under International Red Cross control. If that is so, I profoundly hope that the Colonel will quickly give the answer to the International Red Cross, which is now in communication with him.
Her Majesty's Government have been criticised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and others for having a biased attitude towards Biafra's claim to secession. I only have to say that at the end of the day it is the people of Nigeria who must decide how they can live at peace with each other. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable or dishonourable in Britain, the creator of the original Nigerian union, hoping passionately that the

people there will find that way of living with each other.
Whatever differences we may have in this House on this question, whatever differences of opinion there may be about what is the wisest British policy, I am sure that at this point in time we will all hope that at these meetings now under the patronage of the Organisation of African Unity, all the Nigerians will find a way of living at peace one with another.

Mr. Alan Fitch (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ELY OUSE-ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
I understand that the scope of the debate on this Motion is very narrow, almost as tight as that on Third Reading. Therefore I propose to confine myself to the factual content of the Bill itself and to outline the case for the Bill. Should any detailed questions arise during the debate I hope that there will be an opportunity for them to be answered.
The Bill is promoted jointly by the Great Ouse and Essex River Authorities. The purpose is to transfer water from the area of the Great Ouse Authority to the Essex Authority to deal with a serious deficiency of water which might occur in South Essex if these proposals are not implemented. The Bill proposes the extraction from the Ely-Ouse Pond near Denver Sluice of water to be taken in a variety of journeys ending in Hanningfield and Abberton reservoirs. If any hon. Member has a detailed point to make about the variety of journeys, I shall be able to answer.
An extra 24 million gallons of water a day in Essex would be achieved without the need for constructing further reservoirs. The House might ask whether this is desirable or necessary. I suggest that it is necessary. The population of


Essex is very nearly 2 million. It is an extremely dry part of the country, although I find that difficult to believe this summer. In many summers there are already restrictions on the use of water in some of these areas. In the past there have been periods of considerable drought, particularly from 1933 to 1935 and as recently as 1965 and these could occur again.
At the moment the demand for water in this area exceeds the reliable yield and we can concern ourselves only with the reliable yield and not gamble on what might be an unreliable yield. By 1978 the deficiency is expected to be 24 million gallons a day. By 1971 there will be a considerable deficiency, 20 million gallons a day, part of which will be met by local schemes other than that put forward by the Bill. Even so, if an urgent start cannot be made on the work outlined in the Bill during this summer, there is great risk that there will not be an adequate supply by 1971 and a serious situation could arise.
I understand that there is no objection in general terms to the scheme but two petitions have been lodged—by Norfolk County Council and King's Lynn Borough Council—in which it was requested that a Clause should be added to the Bill to require the promoters to come to Parliament again if at any time it was necessary to move more water from the Great Ouse basin to the Essex River Authority.
The great fears of Norfolk, I understand, relate largely to the possible cost of water in the county. Some people are particularly concerned about the underground tunnel from Blackdyke Farm to Kennett, which could carry 175 million gallons a day, although the limit in the Bill is 100 million gallons a day maximum, or 17,500 million gallons in any 18-month period. I understand it is feared that considerably more could be sent through.
There is also a pilot scheme for ground water extraction going on in the Great Ouse area at the moment. It is feared that the tunnel and other works could be used not only for the transfer to the Essex authority of surface water from the Ely Ouse River but also for the transfer of ground water. I refer hon.

Members who have studied the petitioners' case to paragraph 20:
It would be unreasonable and unjust to the inhabitants of your petitioners' county if the supply to them were restricted to more costly water and they were thereby prevented from using less costly water drawn from sources in their own county and diverted to users in Essex ".
I appreciate the very understandable fears of Norfolk County Council, but in reply to its case I point out that evidence was submitted to the Select Committee that in discharge of its statutory responsibilities the Great Ouse River Board would have to have regard to local needs. In addition, the Water Resources Board, and in the last resort the Minister, would have to ensure that there was no undue financial burden placed on local inhabitants in the export of water.
I understand that the Bill has the full support of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and also of the Water Resources Board. If at any future date such a proposal as is feared by Norfolk County Council be made to divert local water to Essex in the interests of national water policy, a Ministerial decision would be required. I understand that an undertaking has been given that before such a decision there would have to be a public inquiry and Norfolk County Council would have full opportunity of making its case at such an inquiry where the usual procedure would be gone through. Perhaps that assurance could be repeated by the Parliamentary Secretary from the Government Front Bench today.
The Select Committee decided, rightly or wrongly, not to accept the contentions of Norfolk County Council and King's Lynn Council and accepted the Bill virtually as presented on Second Reading. I ask the House to consider the Bill now and to pass it into law before the Summer Recess. I remind the House that the Water Resources Board's Report on Water Supplies in South-East England says clearly that by 1971 in the Essex River Authority area for all purposes there will be a deficiency of 20 million gallons a day and by 1981 a deficiency of 60 million gallons a day. The Board considers it essential to have a scheme of this sort.
It is also essential that if possible the work should start this summer. Otherwise there is a real risk of that even by


1971 there may be a deficiency of nearly 10 million gallons a day for the urgent needs of South Essex. Particularly is this true if we should have a dry winter at that time.
The Bill has passed another place. It has received a Second Reading and been fully considered by a Committee in the normal way and received its approbation. It has the support of the Government and the Water Resources Board and meets the serious and critical needs for water resources in Essex without infringing the liberties or pockets of those in other parts of the country, I hope. If there is any danger the Minister has given an undertaking that there would be an inquiry before a situation deleterious to them could possibly arise. In these circumstances, and in view of the urgency of starting work as soon as possible, I hope that tonight the House will feel inclined to consider the Bill and allow it to proceed to the Statute Book before the Summer Recess.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) quite rightly has risen to argue in favour of his constituents' need for more water. Representing as he does a seat in thirsty Essex, I well appreciate his anxiety to see the Bill passed by the House. I have no intention of seeking to divide the House against it. On the contrary, I recognise Essex's need for water and the duty that falls upon those parts of the country that have water supplies in surplus to help in providing the water needed by those to the south of us.
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the Minister's undertaking that a public inquiry would be held before any application to increase the amount of water to be taken from the Ely Ouse is agreed to. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is the case, and that, in the event of there being an application for more water to be taken than is allowed for in the Bill, he will not place those who then object in the invidious position of having to show why Essex should not take the water. I hope rather that he will say that the River Board of Essex will have to come and show cause at a public hearing why it should have the water and that it is needed.
I have four points to make in what I suspect will be a comparatively short debate. The first is that I should have thought it better if the Board had had to come back to Parliament and not simply go to a public hearing in order to increase their volume of water, and I ask the Minister to deal with that point.
My second point concerns the disturbance that is inevitable in my own constituency of Bury St. Edmunds during the course of construction of the considerable capital works that will be needed for this programme. The Minister will know that there is to be constructed a 72-inch internal diameter pipe between Kennett and Kirtling Green, and beyond that a 66-inch pipe between Wixoe and Great Sampford. By no means the whole length of this pipe lies through my constituency, but a good deal of it does, and it is in respect of those portions which affect West Suffolk that I am making these representations.
In order to do this work, a swath of land 150 feet wide will be taken from the farmers through whose land the pipes will go, and during the period of construction this 150 feet swath of land for many miles will be out of cultivation. Even when the pipes have been laid and the water is flowing—and I emphasise that I want to see that water flowing— there will still be a 40-feet swath of land taken out of cultivation. My own estimate, which is confirmed by the Clerk to the Essex Water Board is that something like 110 acres will go out of cultivation in the course of contraction and afterwards. I appreciate that pipes cannot be laid without land being taken, and the amount of land in question is not so considerable. I am also well aware that farmers are to get compensation, which I think is 10s. 6d. per yard run. There is no quarrel between the National Farmers' Union, certainly not the Bury St. Edmunds Branch, and the Water Board over the compensation which, on the whole, is probably adequate, but I hope that the Minister will appreciate that in addition to the simple loss of land, which no one wishes to see, there is bound to be a great deal of disturbance in the course of construction.
I am raising this matter so that my constituents may know now, before the lorries start churning up their land and before they find it difficult to drive along


their lanes. It is inevitable that during the construction months they will have to put up with a good deal of noise, a good deal of disturbance, a good deal of mud, and they may not like it. I refer to this point in advance, so that it is made clear to them, and they will have no ground to object if they suffer later from such inconveniences.
The county planners of no less than four counties have been brought into the matter, and they have laid down fairly sensible rules which the Water Board has agreed to accept. Perhaps I could say in passing that, having myself met the Clerk to the Essex River Authority, I am most impressed by the care with which he has dealt with objections. He has met fully each point and his public relations, particularly with local farmers, have been throughout most excellent.
For all that, there are one or two minor matters which I put under the heading of amenity and disturbance on which I wish the Minister to comment. The pumping station at Kennett is a matter that concerns both the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and myself. There is concern among my constituents as to whether this substantial building will be an attractive feature of our landscape or whether, as so often has been the case in the past, an ugly and unattractive building is to be put up. There are to be planning obligations on the Water Board in respect of elevations, landscaping, tree planning, etc., but I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the capital works programmes that are carried out in the lovely countryside of West Suffolk conform as far as possible to the contour and charm of the area. I will not deal with the matter of the tunnel. My hon. Friend may wish to make that. Neither will I deal with the pipelines and other amenities. I content myself with asking the Minister to confirm that the amenity aspects will be thoroughly enforced on the Water Board.
My third point is a crucial one to the farming community in the southern part of my constituency, and conceivably in the northern part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk). Modern and advanced farmers in this area are using

more and more spray irrigation. This is a heavy water use, and many of them are fortunate in that they are already licensed abstracters by right. In other words, they have their own source of water on their own premises.
Section 58 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, deals with the charging schemes that may be laid down by water boards in matters of this kind. It was under Section 58 that the Ministry prepared and sent out the memorandum of advice laying down how charging is to be organised, paragraph 13 of which says that the cost of any major work of bringing water into a river authority can be, and indeed should be, charged to the users. In other words, those who benefit ought to pay.
The only beneficiaries of this scheme are the two statutory undertakers, the public water boards. Any benefit that the farmers in the southern portion of my constituency may get are entirely fringe ones. They will not get any more water. They have plenty already, and they are concerned about the possibility of being charged additionally to finance the capital works programme of this board, although at present they have all the water that they require from their own licensed sources. It is that to which objection is taken.
I have had a meeting with the authority's clerk on this point. The authority maintains quite rightly that the Ely Ouse scheme will halt the deterioration in the existing supplies of water in the chalk aquafer in the southern part of Suffolk. However, the local branch of the National Farmers' Union has put the following point in reply, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. It says:
Since agricultural abstractors in the Stour Valley have in fact been denied new licences for at least six years now, they should not and cannot be held responsible for any deterioration that may have taken place in the chalk, and therefore they ought not to have to pay for a scheme which augments the present deficiency "—
that is to say, which augments a situation that they themselves have had no part in creating.
The point of principle here is simply that farmers in my part of the Stour Valley are licensed water abstractors, and they will find themselves paying for water that they do not want but which will be used by industrial and domestic consumers


elsewhere. I do not claim that the charges here should be universal. There should be some way in which the farming community in the area is let off at least some of the very high capital charges. If it is not, it will not be encouraged to go ahead with spray irrigation.
We are confronted with a Bill which in itself is perfectly sound, with the few minor exceptions which I have indicated. However, once again it is tinkering with the problem. Furthermore, it leaves water users throughout East Anglia with the feeling that, instead of the main job of providing water for our eastern counties being tackled fully and in the round, it is being dealt with piecemeal —here a reservoir, there a reservoir, here a little piped scheme and there a tunnel —when, instead, the water resources of East Anglia should be considered as a whole.
If the Minister were to go to the people of our Eastern Counties with a programme which looked forward to the utilisation of the Wash and the integration of water supplies in the whole area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I am afraid that we cannot deal with what the Bill does not do.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing that out. I was about to say merely that the Minister would not have come across the difficulty that he has had with this scheme and several others which my hon. Friends could mention if he had tackled the problem as a whole. That is my comment, and I hope that that at least is within the terms of order.
I conclude on behalf of my constituents by saying simply that we are concerned that this scheme may make more likely the deprivation of farmers in the Great Bradley area of land needed for a storage reservoir there. We are concerned about possible effects on our amenities. Above all, we are concerned about the lack of a general policy involving the Wash.
I do not wish to prevent this Bill passing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West is right when he says that Essex needs the water. By all means let Essex have the water, but let it not be at an expense which is too great for

some of my constituents to bear. Above all, let it not happen without at least a sideways glance at the larger and more fruitful scheme which the Government should be considering.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said about Essex's need for water, nor do I oppose its getting this Bill, which seems to be sensible as it is diverting water which otherwise would run to waste into the Wash. This is a matter to which we ought to be turning our attention, and I hope that my hon. Friend and hon. Members representing other constituencies in Essex will join in urging any Minister who may have this problem on his desk as a matter of urgency to continue studying the wider aspects to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) addressed himself just now.
I also agree with everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said. As for the pipeline to which he referred, as a practical man who has had to deal with problems of compensation in respect of pipelines, I hope that in this case they will be dealt with in the way in which the Gas Board has approached similar cases in the past. That Board has had very good relations with the farming community. It has dealt with matters in a sensible and practical manner by meeting people on the spot, which is the only way.
The proposed pipeline involving a swathe of land 150 feet wide will cause many problems to farmers. It will cut through roads and disturb buildings by cutting them off for a time. There is no doubt that the huge vehicles of contractors working across the land will cause considerable inconvenience, upset drainage and result in serious permanent damage to the land unless the work is done very carefully.
I have been involved in this scheme for a very long time. I am a member of the Norfolk County Council and was involved personally in this objection to the Bill which was aimed at securing some safeguard for what we thought were the rights of Norfolk ratepayers who, at one time or another, will want this water.
Practically all the channels referred to appear on a very good map which the authorities have produced for our help. Very large parts of the relief channel between Denver Sluice and the Wash and the cut-off channel run through my constituency and very close to my home. Both those channels were initiated following the floods in 1953 and they were undertaken by the former Conservative Government at a cost of many millions of pounds. For many years ahead they have safeguarded the rich and productive Fen area from flooding. In fact, of course, it is carrying out Vermuyden's plan of 1600.
From this relief channel and from the cut-off channel, Essex will pipe and tunnel back water which would otherwise run to waste. I applaud it for doing so, but I am sorry that King's Lynn did not think it advisable to abstract the water flowing past it before Essex got hold of it.
I wish to explain the reasons why we want some assurances. In addition to piping the water from the channels, the Bill provides for a far bigger capacity tunnel than that of the amount of water which could be taken from the channels. Undoubtedly, as has been said in evidence, the promoters' idea is that, if in the chalk reservoirs of Norfolk sufficient water can be found from the study and exploration now going on—strangely enough, this water is referred to as "ground water", although it comes from underground—it will be taken from the underground reservoir, on which many towns in South Norfolk rely at present, and will be pumped into the relief channels or in some way diverted down the same route into Essex.
The purposes of Norfolk County Council trying to get safeguards written into the Bill were twofold. First, the County Council was concerned that there might not be sufficient water left for its own development. Anybody who has studied the plans of the Economic Council for the Eastern Region will know that there are large schemes for the development of industry and population movements into that area. We in Norfolk were worried that there might not be sufficient water left for our own use if too much water was diverted from the underground reservoir.
Secondly, we thought that the cost should be at least as little as it is costing Essex. We hope that we will be able to have it cheaper. We understand that the Minister has given assurances that an inquiry will be held before any extra water is diverted. We are glad to hear this. We hope that the Minister will repeat this assurance tonight.
Those are the two fears of the Norfolk County Council. They were not accepted by the Committee of the House. I nevertheless draw them to the Minister's attention. Norfolk County Council and Norfolk are not dog in the manger. We do not wish to see water run to waste. We know how valuable it is. Practically the whole of my area, although not thickly populated, is under water restrictions every summer, and I believe that certain areas are at present under water restrictions, which is ridiculous in view of the weather we have had in the last few weeks.
Fears are held by farmers over a wide area. The so-called ground water, which I would rather refer to as underground water, comes from an area which is very light land. If the water table is so lowered as to damage the crops growing on this light land, as can happen in a very dry spring, we hope that the Mini-try of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry has now left the Chamber, but I hope that the Minister who is present will draw his attention to this point—will watch these bores very carefully and ensure that not too much water is extracted and that damage is not done to crops on this light land.
I ask the Ministers concerned to give assurances to the County Council and to fanners so that their fears may be put at rest. In particular, I ask for an assurance that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will carefully watch the harmful effects to crops.
I do not wish to oppose this scheme. I wish it good luck. I hope that it proceeds rapidly. I hope that the farmers through whose land these tunnels and pipes will pass do not suffer too much hardship from the dislocation of their farming work. I certainly hope that the whole question of water supplies for Eastern England is urgently and carefully


examined as a whole, and in particular the Wash Barrage Scheme.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I suppose it is inevitable that a debate of this kind will tend to turn on constituency points. As the hon. Member whose constituency is possibly more affected by this scheme than almost any other, perhaps I should follow in the tradition set by those who have preceded me. I agree wholeheartedly with the more general point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that piecemeal schemes of this type would not be necessary if there had been better planning by Governments of all political colours. However, I know that I must not go too deep into that argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be out of order to enter upon a discussion of what other schemes might have been put forward. We can discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Kirk: I had anticipated you on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I knew that if I went further into the point I should be out of order. I was merely supporting the point which my hon. Friends had made.
With the exception of a few small disturbances in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, the major disturbance involved in this scheme all takes place in my constituency—a very large part of it within the parish of Steeple Bumpstead, where I have the honour to live. Therefore, I have a close interest in this. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) spoke eloquently in favour of the Bill, as befits an inhabitant of the more industrial and more populated part of Essex which will benefit from the scheme and which will have none of the disadvantages which will arise from it.
As one who represents an area which will have virtually all the disadvantages perhaps I might also support the Bill to the full. I have a feeling that what has not been overlooked by the farmers in my area is that any increase in water supply to the Stour and Colne Valleys,

in whatever part of the valleys it takes place, is bound to assist them. The water situation in Essex at the moment is very bad. By 1971, unless this scheme goes through, it will have become desperate, and by the later part of the 1970's it will have become impossible.
Not only is there restriction on the use of water throughout the whole of my constituency. There is even restriction on building throughout the whole of my constituency because of the shortage of water. Unless the Bill goes through, life will gradually grind in this aspect to some sort of a halt. Therefore, failing any other scheme, this scheme becomes absolutely vital for all parts of the community.
I quite see the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that farmers are naturally worried that they may not get their fair share. However, the farmers to whom I have talked in my division take the view that any general increase is bound to benefit them, because if the supply of water runs down in the way in which it looks like doing over the next five or 10 years, not only in Essex, but on the other side of the Stour as well in my hon. Friend's constituency, they will all suffer together.
It is true that the disturbance involved in these works will be very considerable. It will involve a large number of my constituents between the right bank of the Stour and Great Sampford. They will be faced with a long period when a large part of their land will be unusable and a period afterwards when a rather smaller part of their land will be virtually sterile. I hope that the Minister will impress upon the authorities concerned the need for adequate consultation and the need—this is much more important than compensation—for adequate consultation at every stage. Many of these schemes have run into endless difficulties, not because anybody opposed them, but because people were not consulted. The farmers who land lies along the line should be told precisely what is involved from the start and should be kept informed all the way through. I hope that the Essex authorities will do this. Knowing them, I am certain that they will.
I quite understand the reservations felt by some people in Norfolk and which my hon. Friend has given expression to. I understand the anxieties of some of the


farmers I represent, particularly those in the Steeple Bumstead area, where much land has already suffered great upheaval because of flood prevention works. Nevertheless, I am certain that the Bill is in the general interests, not only of Essex, but of East Anglia as a whole, and I hope that the House will wish it on its way tonight.

7.40 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I think that it might help the House if I were to intervene at this point and put the Government's view on the Bill. It is not for me to reply to the debate as it is a Private Bill, not a Government Measure, but I congratulate those who have brought the Bill forward. It is the product of a remarkable piece of collaboration between these two authorities which have come together to work out a solution to common problems, making an extremely interesting experiment in the movement of water. The scheme has the great advantage that it will, to a large extent, use existing watercourses, which will have a good deal of effect in avoiding damage to agricultural land such as might arise from other schemes.
I have no hesitation in advising the House that, in my view, the Bill should be approved. It has been through a Select Committee, before which everyone had a chance to have his say. It was fully considered by the Select Committee, and at this stage I suggest that we should pass it as soon as we can.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) adopted, if I may say so, a thoroughly public-spirited attitude in recognising that the worries which he and his constituents have should be seen in the perspective of the wider problems involved, and all the points which he raised were constructive. He asked why, if there were to be a further use of water, the matter would be done not by a Private Bill but directly through a public inquiry. The answer is that the powers under the Water Resources Act would be used. The reason why the same procedure was not adopted for the present purpose is that there were certain gaps in that Act, gaps which the House put right this year. That is the reason, no doubt, why the promoters

thought it best to come to the House on this occasion.
If the groundwater pilot scheme which is now going on in the Great Ouse basin is successful and it is desired to develop and use it permanently for supply, it will be necessary to obtain licences and orders for the works required, and this will mean that anyone who objects will be heard. My right hon. Friend intends that, if there are objections, he will call in the application for determination by him and a public inquiry for the purpose will be held. The burden of proof in any application of that sort will in the first place be on the people wishing to use the water, but, equally, there will be a responsibility on the objectors to make out their objections and not be merely obstructive. That assurance can readily be given.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the pumping station at Kennett. Here also the matter starts in local government. It would be for the local planning authority to approve the application. Planning permission would have to be given. The planning authority would discuss with the Essex River Authority whether the design was suitable and whether it would detract from amenities.
Next, the hon. Gentleman asked what fanners who had licences of right would have to pay to meet the cost. I am in a difficulty here—I am sorry not to be helpful—but the Ely Ouse-Essex charging schemes are at presentsub judice, and I cannot comment on them for that reason.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand that difficulty. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly undertake that, when the matter is no longersub judice, he will reply to a Question so that we have the matter clear?

Mr. MacColl: Once the schemes are no longersub judice, I shall be bursting to answer any Question the hon. Gentleman cares to put down, but it will have to be when the final decision has been taken.
Responsibility for the works and for avoidance of too much disturbance by them is primarily one for the river authorities. They will be operating under the Bill, not under our directions, but they will have heard and studied the proceedings both here and at earlier


stages, and, no doubt, as publicly responsible bodies, they will take fully into account the great importance of doing all that can be done by consultation and of doing as much as possible to avoid damage.
Now, the question of the water table. The pilot scheme is designed to study the water table and see what the effect upon it is. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will watch the interests of the industry for which he is responsible.
Those are, I think, the main points on which I can help the House. No doubt, if others are raised, another hon. Member, on behalf of the promoters, will be able to assist.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am concerned partly because some of the borings lie in my constituency and have some effect, perhaps indirectly, upon water users in my constituency, particularly the farmers. I echo the feelings expressed by other Norfolk Members in that, although we realise that Essex must have this water, we have residual anxiety about the future in Norfolk. It is clear that development in Essex cannot go forward at all unless water moves south from Norfolk, and to that extent the scheme under the Bill seems most imaginative, and I hope that it will be successful. Nevertheless, I have in mind longer-term developments in the future, developments which may be substantial in my constituency and adjoining constituencies. We have town expansion schemes going forward, with industry coming in from other parts of the country, all of which makes a considerable new demand for water in addition to that needed for agriculture.
There has already been emphasis on the high water demand in this area of light land, where, in most years, we frequently approach conditions of near drought. Irrigation is, therefore, greatly used, but it is rationed under statutory powers now. Farmers in my constituency, therefore, are a little anxious about the future of the water table. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the water table will be watched, though I am not sure which Minister is responsible for the level of the water table as such, whether Housing and Local Government or Agriculture.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be better at watching water tables than I should be.

Mr. Hill: But the hon. Gentleman's Ministry may well be the principal remover of water. I am concerned, therefore, that the two Ministers should share sufficient powers of liaison to ensure that the water table is not lowered in the future so as to inflict damage upon agriculture and upon the urban developments to which I have referred.
In the past 10 days we have received an important Report from the agricultural Neddy, putting forward great possibilities of substantial agricultural expansion. If, as I hope, the Government wish to see that Report implemented it follows that agricultural demand for water will greatly increase. All root and horticultural crops, and the livestock expansion to which the Report refers, will be heavy water consumers. Broadly speaking, in nine years out of 10 it pays farmers to irrigate, not merely to get increased crops but to ensure that their cropping and planting programme is not checked through lack of rain.
Therefore, I was relieved when the Minister said that on future extensions of the scheme it will be open to those concerned to object and to have the advantage of a public hearing. I hope that this will be a sufficient administrative safeguard, though it cannot meet the danger of there being a cumulative demand for water which may exceed the supply available. Therefore, concurrently with the execution of the scheme, it is most important that the Government, and particularly the Water Resources Board, should continue to examine the whole question of future supplies of water for Eastern England and give them a very high priority in their thinking and actions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow discussion on general policy. We must confine the debate to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Hill: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I fear that if the Bill is a success and more and more water is needed it will not afford a sufficient answer, because the demand for water in Eastern


England has increased and is increasing, and it cannot be diminished.

7.52 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The House owes a great debt to all my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. The opinions of East Anglia have been well voiced from this side of the House, although hon. Members opposite have perhaps not been quite so outspoken.
I have known the Great Ouse River Authority for many years. Some very worthy constituents of mine serve on it, not least Alderman Leonard Childs, for many years chairman of the Authority and the Board which preceded it. The Measure is typical of the imaginative approach which that authority has always had in trying to serve the needs of the people in its area.
I think that this is the first Bill which involves the major transfer of water from one catchment area to another since the Water Resources Act became law. Therefore, it is only right that considerable concern should have been shown to ensure that the Act was properly implemented in the promotion of the Bill.
I have studied the entire proceedings before the Select Committee on the Bill. Many of the points which were rightly raised again tonight were fully dealt with in that hearing. I wish particularly to mention the question of the tunnel size. There is no doubt that the tunnel will be larger than the immediate demand for water might indicate, but the Committee was told by Mr. Hetherington, a member of the Council of the Institution of Civil Engineers, a member of the Institute of Water Engineers and a member of the Association of Consulting Engineers, that it is cheaper to build a tunnel of the size proposed, with a diameter of 100 inches —just over 8 feet, than a smaller tunnel.
Having studied the evidence before the Select Committee, I am satisfied that making the tunnel that size should not be taken as an indication that its maximum capacity will inevitably be used to the detriment of people relying on underground water resources in Norfolk. I am sure that this has been worked out thoroughly scientifically and that many of the fears, with which I fully sympathise, voiced by my hon. Friend the

Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) are not substantiated by the evidence before the Select Committee.
I also naturally sympathise with the anxieties which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) expressed about the effect of major works across a farmer's land. Anybody who lives in the fenlands or has seen fen farmers at work knows that now and again considerable earth works must take place, but there is general recognition that they are in the best interests of sound agriculture. We have learnt a great deal since the laying of the natural gas pipeline about the methods which can be adopted in laying pipelines. Although it is a much bigger pipe—72 inches in diameter—that will be laid through part of my hon. Friend's constituency, we are witnessing very big changes in the technology of laying pipelines and we must hope that in the supply of water, just as in the supply of natural gas, modern methods can be employed to minimise difficulties for the farmers and other land owners across whose land the pipeline will run.
There has naturally been some anxiety by those in Norfolk who have relied on underground water supplies, or foreseen themselves doing so in the future, that if the scheme goes forward their charges will rocket up in line with the capital cost involved. But Essex is carrying the major part of the capital cost of the scheme, and the evidence before the Select Committee shows that the likelihood of deliberately transferring ground water from Norfolk unnecessarily is so remote as virtually to be unrealistic. The matter was probed very deeply, and the evidence of both Mr. Hetherington and Mr. Bissett, the Clerk of the Authority, clearly shows that the likelihood is very remote and that the matter is being dealt with highly scientifically, as is only appropriate in this case.
That there is a desperate need in Essex, there is no doubt. Perhaps the object lesson to be drawn here is that if one plans a vast expansion of population or industry in a certain area of England and does not first go into the question of the water supplies likely to be necessary, one has only oneself to blame if one suddenly finds everybody running short. There is no question that


this is about the only scheme which could meet the crying demand from Essex in time. Perhaps if a lot of people had been wiser originally other schemes might have been thought of, but in the time now available there is no doubt that this is the only one that could possibly meet the need likely to arise in the near future.
For that reason, I hope that the House will give it every possible support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Question proposed, That the Bill, asamended, be now considered.—[Sir S. McAdden.]

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: History to some extent repeats itself. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) has merely moved the Bill formally. When the Bill was taken before the Unopposed Bills Committee, present at that time were the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Bryant Irvine), the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock), the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon)—all members of the Opposition—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and myself.
On that morning we had had two Bills to consider. I mention the other one in passing—the Durban Navigation and Collieries Bill. Both these company Bills had the same aim, which was to move the registration of these companies from this country to South Africa.
The first Bill was disposed of very quickly. Only one question was asked: Does the Bill solely relate to the interests

of this company being solely in South Africa? We received the necessary assurances. I want to make clear that anything that I shall say is in no way critical of the South Africa Government. I cite as evidence the fact that the Durban Navigation and Collieries Bill went through smoothly with that undertaking.
On this Bill the Parliamentary agents said that it was merely formal and sought to put in order an existing situation in which the South African Breweries Company had done all its business for a considerable time in South Africa, that all its administrative offices were there, an so on.
I put the same question as before: Were all the activities of the company solely in play in the Republic of South Africa? I got an assurance that this was so. However, I had availed myself of a report of the company for 1967 from the Library, and the first thing that came to my eye was that in 1952, under an agreement with Rhodesian Breweries Ltd., premises of the South African Breweries Company at Ndola were sold to Rhodesian Breweries Ltd., the purchase price being 12,498,863 5s. shares in the company, which, with 701,137 shares issued for cash at par, resulted in South African Breweries Ltd. acquiring an 82½ per cent. holding in Southern Rhodesian Breweries. This is pertinent to our consideration of the Bill.
The only English director of South African Breweries then in attendance was summoned hastily to give evidence. He made his attitude perfectly clear. It would mislead the House if I said anything else about that. He was a non-executive director, and, therefore, on some of the ramifications of the activities of the company he could not enlighten us much. But is was ascertained that South African Breweries owned a major interest in Southern Rhodesian Breweries. We pursued this line of questioning, and it immediately became apparent that there were many things in the company report that required further investigation.
We adjourned the Committee to seek advice from the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Commonwealth Office. We felt it important. We had a sanctions policy. The legislation is very complex. I could not be sure of all

the ramifications, but it seemed to me that what was in question at that time was the whole question of companies whether registered in this country or whether registered in South Africa and how the sanctions policy affected them. It seemed to me that in this case we were being asked to sanction the removal of a company from this country to South Africa where different laws applied when it was obvious that the company was one with direct interests in Southern Rhodesia, and it may be—it may still be; I maintain it to this day—that if we agreed to that it might be that the future policy of South African breweries might be regarded as giving aid and comfort to the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
I do not wish to say whether we should have a sanctions policy or not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the consideration of the Bill. The discussion must be confined, as on a Third Reading, to matters in the Bill.

Mr. Ellis: I bow at once to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that this is the nub of the argument. The House is being asked to give its approval to the transfer of a company to South Africa where it will come under different laws and it is apparent that the company has substantial holdings in Southern Rhodesia. We must probe what these holdings are and what the state of the sanctions policy is in order to ascertain that any action that the House may take tonight will not be in contravention of our existing policy and law. Subject to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that we must look at what the sanctions policy is throughout in order to ensure that what we are asked to do is not against that policy.
When we received the reports from the three Ministries—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I believe that he intends to go into the ramifications of the reports—we considered further what South African Breweries was doing and what its business was. At this stage the

President of the Company, Dr. Kronje, happened to be in London and was able to appear before us.
I make clear at this point for guidance one of the matters contained in the statement circulated by the agents of the South African Breweries Bill. It says:
The Bill has been approved by the Committee on Unopposed Bills in your honourable House.
We sought to make plain that we should raise this and challenge it tonight, because we felt it was a matter that ought to be put before the House.
The statement also says that Rhodesian Breweries Ltd.
operates through its own Board of Directors and management and enjoys a wide degree of autonomy ".
One can make of that statement what one will, but I do not think there is any doubt, having questioned the people concerned and read that statement, that Rhodesian Breweries is under the control of South African Breweries. Indeed, the Report of the company for 1967, the Directors' Report and the Chairman's Review make clear that that is so. The Chairman's review issued on 21st August, 1967, states:
The Board is of the opinion that the profitability of the group will improve during the coming year.
It gives a list of a whole number of subsidiary companies, including Southern Rhodesian Breweries.
At that point we are referred in the Report of the Company to the Chairman's review of the non-South African activities of the company. It states:
Profit increase was mainly accounted for by higher dividends from Zambian co., Northern Breweries Ltd.
That is another subsidiary of the company. It seems that it has extensive holdings and makes a great deal of profit in Zambia. Many people would find that interesting.
There was a slight decline in brewing results and a falling off in property and dividend income of Rhodesian co., Rhodesian Breweries Ltd. Rhodesian Breweries Ltd. during the year entered Bantu Beer and processed food industry by investing R1 million in Heinrich's Chibuku Breweries Ltd. In Zambia, even by over-straining production facilities, Northern Breweries Ltd., was not able to meet the demand for beer in full.
It seems that Chibuku Breweries is an investment made in Rhodesia and that


part of its enterprise is a process food division. We asked questions of the president on this aspect of the company's business, and it was said quite frankly that all the money which it was expected would be raised for this company would be raised in Rhodesia but that know-how would be made available to the Rhodesian company. Does this fall within the sanctions policy? Is this giving aid to an illegal régime?
My hon. Friend and I sought to obtain what information we could. The only thing which we were able to get which gave us, any insight into the ramifications of this company was the company report for 1967. When we questioned the directors who appeared before us, we were told first that this company had all its bus ness operations in South Africa. Then we discovered that there were subsidiaries operating. When we asked what kind of activities were being pursued, we were not given any explanation about the kind of business which this company did. We had to pursue the matter with the knowledge which we were able to gather from this one report and to investigate.
There are many more items to which I could point in this report, and I intend to refer to a few. We are told:
Acquisition of entire issued share capital of Stellenbosch Farmers Wine Trust Ltd. by Monis Wineries Ltd. was completed during financial year. Company still retains its 67 per cent. of equity in Stellenbosch Wine Trust Ltd. as financial climate has not been considered suitable for disposal of sufficient shares in that company to reduce holding to 34 per cent. in compliance with conditons imposed by Minister of Justice when he gave his approval to merger. Twenty-nine new sub. companies were acquired during year, of which major subsidiary was Stellenbosch Wine Trust Ltd. (formerly Monis Wineries Ltd.). One minor property-owning company was disposed of, and six minor wine and spirit subsidiaries in Rhodesia ceased to be subsidiary companies as a result of reduction of Group's indirect percentage of equity capital in Stellenbosch Farmers Wine Trust Ltd.".
I do not know where the six subsidiary companies have gone to. One knows that the report is only a shortened version of some of the activities of what we can regard as, and what has been proved to be, a holding company, which is a vast enterprise. We are told further:
During year Barsab Investment Trust (Proprietary) Ltd. was formed in which Thomas Barlow and Sons Ltd. and company each hold a 50 per cent. interest. It is intention that Barsab Investment Trust (Pty.)

Ltd. shall be used as a vehicle for investment into activities not directly related to existing activities of either company or Thos. Barlow and Sons Ltd.
Do we know that this company is an investment company? Will it invest in Rhodesia? Investment has taken place before and I should think it continues to extract profits from that company.
The Board of Trade or the Commonwealth Office may ask what the position is concerning the subsidiaries of this company in Rhodesia. They are frozen. Would it not be an embarrassment to the Rhodesia régime if the company transferred to South Africa? All these investments could then flow out and be used by the company in South Africa or elsewhere. One could argue in that way. But it would also be true to say that the company would be able to invest as much as it liked in Rhodesia, Zambia or anywhere else.
We are not satisfied in the Committee about the ramifications of the trade in which this company is engaged. We have been asked to agree to the transfer of this firm from this country. We are told that there are reasons for that. It is said that it labours under the slur from its competitors that it is classed as a foreign company. That has been true for a number of years. We should consider the position concerning the sanctions policy of this country.
I see that the Commonwealth Office and the Board of Trade are represented in the House tonight. I hope that those representatives will seek to intervene in the debate, because important questions concerning both Departments arise. I hope that we shall have a full account from the Board of Trade about whether it has been able to do what we have not been able to do, namely, to discover the ramifications of this holding company and exactly where its trading interests lie. It is a property company. It is concerned with footwear, paint manufacturing, and so on; the list seems to be endless. It has subsidiaries, not only in South Africa, but well outside South Africa.
I hope that I have demonstrated that there are matters about which the House should be satisfied. I think that we were right to bring this subject to the Floor of the House because the Bill raises grave problems with which people are concerned about how business operates, how


companies registered in this country and companies registered in South Africa which may have British nationals within them, as with this company, are affected by the sanctions policy. What policy is the Commonwealth Office pursuing? It seems to me that by agreeing to the Bill the House would allow this company to get rid of any control or obligations which it may have and indulge in unfettered trade with Rhodesia, as it has done in the past. I have demonstrated that it had control of investments through the Chibuku Breweries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, should he catch you eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will relate his experiences. I believe that there is cause for alarm and that the House would be wrong in agreeing to the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am fortunate indeed to be able to take part in the debate at this early stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) rehearsed many of the problems and difficulties with which we have been confronted in trying to trace the history of this company. All the help that we were able to get came from the copy in the Library of Moodies.
I want to deal with the effect of the first meeting of the Committee in calling upon the various Departments of State to submit memoranda on the whole issue. We have been very disturbed by the fact that in a matter of this kind there did not appear to be any memoranda from the various Departments. One would have thought that in view of the existing political situation with regard to Southern Rhodesia the Departments concerned would have done a little homework.
The Bill went through three Government Departments. Presumably their legal advisers saw it, and particularly those in the Board of Trade, because it was this Department which sponsored a Companies Bill—which my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-west, Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and myself were fortunate enough to be able to discuss in Committee—which amended the 1948 Companies Act. The Bill now before

us was considered in Committee, yet, having been through the legal department of the Board of Trade, it contained some of the provisions of the 1948 Act which had been repealed by the 1967 Act. That immediately made us suspicious about the amount of attention which had been given to it.
We then received three memoranda from the Government Departments concerned. Paragraph 2 of the Treasury's Memorandum said:
If the effect of this Bill was to allow control of a Rhodesian company to pass from the United Kingdom to South Africa it would be contrary to the sanctions policy, but this is clearly not the case.
Our comment on that is that formal and legal control of a British registered company will go to South Africa.
We then received the longest and most amazing memorandum of all, that from the Board of Trade. It was a surprising document, for a variety of reasons, First, it argued ade facto situation. Then it argued ade jure situation. I submit that the argument was wrong on both counts. The Department then argued that it did not matter what happened, or whether this House passed the Bill or not because, if sanctions breaking had been going on, it would go on anyway, and therefore it did not really matter what the House decided one way or the other. That was perhaps the nastiest thing about the memorandum.
Paragraph 2 says:
As the Bill makes clear, the company is administered and operates from South Africa … the major portion of its issued capital is held by shareholders resident in South Africa, and no part of its administration or activities is carried on in the United Kingdom.
That is true, but many of the company's shareholders are in the United Kingdom. Their shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange in this country, and people would be free to invest in them. If this company went to South Africa and it was used as a vehicle to break sanctions, people in this country would benefit from the breaking of sanctions. My hon. Friend has made it clear that this could have the result of unfreezing moneys which the illegal régime controls at the moment, but equally there could be a free flow of money into Southern Rhodesia via South Africa.
In paragraph 3 of its memorandum the Board of Trade argues:
The legal position of the Rhodesian subsidiary company under the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968, which applies to Rhodesian companies, will remain unchanged by the Bill.
That is missing the point. The issue here is not what is the legal position of the subsidiary as a Rhodesian company, but the legal position of the parent company. South African Breweries, now registered in this country. I am sure that whoever was responsible for arguing first the practical and then thede jure will get a rocket.
The Board of Trade goes on to say in paragraph 3:
It might at first sight appear that the transfer of the parent company to South African registration might facilitate collaboration between the parent company and its Rhodesian subsidiary, for example by enabling the former to give greater financial help to the latter.
At first sight that might well be the case! But the memorandum goes on to say:
Whether the Bill will have this effect depends on the extent to which the parent company has in the past been inhibited by its liability under United Kingdom law. In view of the facts set out in the Preamble to the Bill, the Board does not consider that the parent company is likely to have been so inhibited or that any Government action in the United Kingdom purporting to control the company would have had or could in the future have, any practical effect on its actions in relation to Rhodesia.
On the basis of that, because we cannot do anything if they are operating in this way in South Africa, it seems that they should be granted that extra facility of being able to do legally in South Africa what they could not do in this country because it would be illegal. Surely that is not the kind of principle on which legislation can be based? Has something slipped through the machine which means that my hon Friends on the Front Bench are now saddled with something which, in retrospect, they feel they cannot tolerate?
In Committee I asked a number of questions about the organisation of the company. My hon. Friend talked about the various subsidiaries. I raised a matter in which I have been interested since reading Clive Jenkins on the Insiders, the question of interlocking directorships. I was pleased to see in the memorandum submitted by the agents for

the promoters of the Bill that reference is made to the fact that there are five Rhodesian and five South African directors on the board of the subsidiary company. According to the answers which I received from the chairman of the company, these five South African directors are executives of the South African company—not necessarily directors or large shareholders, but executives.
I put the question to him, because he spoke of the autonomy of the company:
What would happen if South Rhodesian Breweries did something that you did not like? Would the great autonomy then operate?
I must paraphrase his reply because in this Committee we do not keep a record of all the proceedings. He said:
Well, we would be able to affect the issue. We would be able to see that the subsidiary did not get out of line.
That was a reasonable sort of answer, and one which I had suspected that he would make. He was clearly indicating that the Rhodesian subsidiary, for all the talk of its having a wide degree of autonomy, is nevertheless as firmly under the control of the Board in South Africa as I.B.M. in the United Kingdom, for instance, is under the control of I.B.M. America.
I therefore put one final question to the chairman of the company, and I hope that my hon. Friends will pay careful attention to it. I said:
Will you give an undertaking that no further investment will take place in Rhodesia until the illegal régime is replaced by a legitimate Government recognised by Her Majesty's Government?
I wrote down the words that I intended to use because I wanted to have a record of what I had asked. The chairman of the company could not give me that undertaking. If he could not give me that undertaking I do not feel that we could pass the Bill even if someone now came forward and said that such an undertaking would be given. I would feel that an undertaking given here tonight in those terms could be changed quite easily if the company went back.
The chairman said that he could not give that undertaking without reference to his board. The important point is that if that undertaking could not be given at that time without reference to the board what was the board doing in asking us


to facilitate the passage of a Bill which would enable it to do so?

Mr. Neil Marten: I have no interest in this company, but the chairman of the company cannot give an undertaking such as that by himself.

Mr. McNamara: I agree. But the point is that one does not bring a highly contentious issue like that before a Committee of the House without being prepared to answer a question of that nature.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the offence was even greater, in the sense that the Committee had raised this very point at the earlier meeting and the chairman had come along to the later meeting to deal with that point. If he could not have obtained instructions from his board in the interim the matter could have been deferred for a later occasion.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has made my point. I shall conclude shortly so that we can hear the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and many of my other hon. Friends. If I can persuade enough of my hon. Friends to speak we may have a galaxy of speakers.
I conclude with a statement made by the Commonwealth Secretary in respect of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order in this House last week. He said:
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who opened the debate for the Opposition, asked about the position of British firms and their directors in Rhodesia. Perhaps I might put the matter on record since it is, I know, of great concern to many business undertakings. The Rhodesian subsidiaries of British registered companies are within the scope of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order that we are discussing.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 1204.]
It is my contention and the contention of my hon. Friends that we are speaking here of legal persons—that the South African Brewery Company is a legal person, and that we are in fact, by transferring this company—if we do it— to South Africa, taking out of the ambit of the authority of this House, however momentarily, the control of an important trading concern in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject the Bill.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The House owes a great deal of gratitude to my hon. Friends who, by their perspicacity and assiduous researches, have been able to show the real nature of this application. I am glad that they have forced a discussion of the matter on the Floor of the House because, within the permitted rules of order, it allows us to probe the attitude of the Board of Trade to this example of sanctions breaking.
This company was incorporated in this country in 1895. Throughout its history, it has engaged in operations in South Africa and the southern part of Africa. Most of its operations are in, and most of its finance and workers come from, southern Africa. In 1951, management and direction of the company was almost completely controlled from South Africa, yet no move, between then and 1968, was made to transfer its registered office to South Africa. It is true that this is because they were not allowed by South African legislation to do so until 1967, but it is clear from the Memorandum of the supporters of the Bill that they were part of the pressure on the South African Government to introduce enabling legislation to allow this move.
It is curious to notice that the move in South Africa was made in 1967, a year after sanctions had begun. Why, then, are we troubled with this Bill? Why are we being asked to allow this company to move its registered office to South Africa? The company say, "It is because, in South Africa, we are regarded as a foreign company, and our business interests suffer as a result." But this is a company with a capital of £15 million. This is a substantial organisation in southern Africa and it is said that its trade suffers because it is called a foreign company.
Or is the real reason that this company recognises that, in fact and in law, whatever the Board of Trade thinks about it, it has been in breach of the original sanctions and is certainly in breach of the present sanctions Order? We cannot allow the argument that, "formally", this may be an English company but its operations are in South Africa. The legal persona is the British company because the registered offices are here. It is in breach of the sanctions Order,


not only in law but in fact. Why no prosecution has been made of the company I should like to know from my hon. Friend.
It is not much good the Commonwealth Office saying—I applaud the Government for having said this—"Now we will be tough with Rhodesia and no effort will be spared in our sanctions policy," if a soft underbelly at the Board of Trade says, "Oh, well, if our interference with sanctions busting might upset South Africa, we will not bother, because, although formally the company's offices are in London, actually it is in South Africa." What greater reason for interfering? If it is true—the Government have throughout maintained this policy—that we cannot afford to apply sanctions to South Africa and we therefore accept a big loophole in the policy, what greater reason could there be for closing this little loophole which we can seize upon?
But no. Far from prosecuting this company, the Government will help it to save a little money. The company could—if we pass the Bill—wind up its operations in this country and start a new company in South Africa, taking over all the assets of the existing company—at some cost, but not, I would have thought, a great cost, to the shareholders. The Board of Trade is so accommodating. It does not want to upset the shareholders in South Agrica by costing them a little of the profits. No, it will allow a Private Bill to go through the Houes of Commons to accommodate this company which, in fact and in law, is breaking sanctions.
This just is not good enough. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I hope that she will not be as tardy in her replies as, apparently were the witnesses from the company and certainly as the Board of Trade Memorandum was. Of all the inept language, that Memorandum is a classic. It should go down in the annals of Whitehall as one of the most singlarly inappropriate explanations of Government action ever put forward by a Government Department. It is intolerable that we should be conducting an open economic war with Rhodesia and then find that the Board of Trade is making this kind of accommodation for a company which

is engaged in this activity. I intend to vote against the Bill.
Before I sit down—and I believe that this is in order—I want to ask why I am instructed under a two-line Whip to be here to support the Bill. This is a Private Bill, apparently nothing to do with the Government. Why has the Patronage Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now out of order and I hope that he will come back into order. He may not discuss a three-line Whip or any other Whip on a private Bill.

Mr. Lyons: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for bringing me back into order. Having made the point, I can move to the next point.
The Government's conduct on this Bill is singularly unfortunate. I hope that it was no more than negligence that they did not apprehend the points which were later apprehended by my hon. Friend. I hope that it was negligence and that whoever was negligent will subsequently receive his due reward. If it were more than negligence, if in fact this were known by the Board of Trade, I have very serious doubts about the effectiveness of a sanctions policy applied by that Department.

8.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): Both my colleague at the Commonwealth Office and I have listened to several points raised specifically in connection with our Departmental responsibilities. It is my intention to intervene briefly on the purely legal arguments which the Board of Trade has deployed on the Bill and it is the intention of my hon. Friend from the Commonwealth Office to answer points raised in general on the question of the sanctions policy.
The South African Breweries Bill provides for the transfer to South Africa of the registered offices of the South African Breweries, Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ohlsson's Cape Breweries, Limited. Both companies are registered in Great Britain and are owned as to 75 per cent. of their issued capital by residents of South Africa. South African Breweries, Ltd. has 16 directors of whom 13 are


South African. There is one non-executive director who is a resident of the United Kingdom.
There is no provision in the Companies Act for the transfer of a company's place of registration overseas. The normal procedure in such cases would be to wind up the company in Great Britain and to raise another company in the overseas country concerned. This procedure is complex and expensive and gives rise to legal difficulties, for instance with existing contracts, which would have to be redrawn. Several hon. Members have made the point that it is only recently that the company has endeavoured to move its registered offices, but it is only recently that South Africa has adopted legislation which would permit the transfer to that country of a company which is able under the legislation of the country of its existing registration, to transfer from that country without winding up.
The South African Breweries, Ltd. desire to provide for such transfer from Great Britain. As far as the Board of Trade are aware, all the requirements of the Companies Acts necessary to obtain members' approval of the transfer have been complied with. With regard to control of the activities of the Rhodesian subsidiary company, this will effectively remain with the South African directors and the majority shareholders whether the company is registered in Great Britain, is wound up and is re-registered in South Africa or is transferred to South Africa under the provisions of the Bill. The Secretary of the South African Breweries, Ltd. has told the Board of Trade that if the Bill is unsuccessful the company, despite any inconvenience and expense, will be wound up and re-registered in South Africa.
Some of the points raised in the debate will be dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that memoranda should have been provided by the Board of Trade, the Commonwealth Office and the Treasury for the Committee stage of the Bill.
As a Private Bill, it was for the promoters to secure that it was passed through Parliament and there was no obligation on the Department to provide memoranda if the Department did not

consider that it had an interest in promoting or opposing the Measure. This was the situation when the Bill went into Committee.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Would my hon. Friend agree equally that, as a Private Bill, the Government should not enforce the Whip and that there should be an absolutely free vote?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I gladly concur with the opinion of my hon. Friend. This is a Private Bill and any vote that there might be will be a free one.
The memoranda that were asked for were submitted by the relevant Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North then went into the question of the legal error in the Bill. I believe that he was referring to Clauses 4(2) and 5(2) as first presented. These Clauses related to fees payable for the registration of certain documents on the transfer of the company under the Companies Acts. Under the Companies Act, 1948, a fee of 5s. was payable for the registration of documents, but this was abolished in 1967. These Clauses were unnecessary and, accordingly, were deleted.
My hon. Friend then said that he was concerned at the fact that we had used ade facto argument in Committee in the first half and ade jure argument in the second. The Board of Trade memorandum was concerned to say three things: first, that the formal transfer of the company to South Africa did not offend against the Government's policy on Rhodesia; secondly, that the transfer made no difference to the actions of the company—these points will be gone into in greater detail when my hon. Friend replies to the debate—and, thirdly, refusing to allow the company to be transferred would have no effect since it would wind up in the United Kingdom and start up again in South Africa. These considerations are partly concerned with the legal position and partly concerned with the company's removal. They are all relevant to the issue.
We have listened with great attention to the arguments that have been adduced by hon. Members. I hope that I have dealt with the legal interpretations that the Board of Trade had in mind and I assure the House that my hon. Friend will


further elucidate the matter in relation to the Government's policy on sanctions.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: Would my hon. Friend qualify a point on which many of us feel anxiety? Arising out of the serious charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), in which I understood him to be accusing this company of already having infringed Britain's sanctions policy, has the Board of Trade considered this possibility? If not, why not, and if it has, what conclusion has been reached?

Mrs. Dunwoody: This matter has been considered, but there is no evidence that the Rhodesian subsidiary of this company, when we are talking about South African Breweries itself, infringed the laws of this country.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If it is true, as the Chairman of the company accepted in cross-examination, that South African Breweries provided spirits to Rhodesian Breweries, is not that a breach of sanction?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I would be prepared to consider this point, but I was not aware that this evidence had been given by the Chairman of the company. My understanding was that the assets of the Rhodesian company and the investments that it makes itself are financed privately, that moneys are raised in Rhodesia and that there is not any financial assistance from South African Breweries.

Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend may be unaware that when asked this question about spirits in connection with the Rhodesian company, the director made it clear that the company was free to buy from wherever it wanted, whether or not the source was the parent company. Perhaps it did buy spirits from the parent company in South Africa; and I think that that is likely.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I confess that I was not aware of this. I hope that hon. Members will give me an opportunity to investigate the matter because it may appear that, in this instance, the company might have been in breach of some of the later aspects of the legal sanctions policy; but I would prefer my hon. Friend to deal with the matter in greater detail when he replies to the debate and comments on the subject of sanctions.

8.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I want now to reply very briefly to the debate. I cannot help feeling that much of the heat that has been engendered has. been engendered because hon. Members have felt that this was a Government Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is, of course, a Private Bill, for which the Government claim no responsibility at all. But I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) on their diligence in seeking to pounce upon anything which they feel might lead in the end to sanctions breaking. However, I think that they have over-estimated our power over South African Breweries, because it is a company that is registered here. Its presence here is formal, and our power over it is quite formal.
In general, our policy is to prevent Rhodesian companies from passing out of British control, but experience has shown that the fact that the parent company is registered in London, or is even genuinely owned here, does not necessarily mean that the actions of its Rhodesian subsidiaries can be influenced. In the present instance, effective control has rested in South Africa since 1951. All the company's operations take place there, and the major portion of the capital is held there. The company has no assets in this country at all, and if the Bill were rejected the company would merely take steps to wind up its affairs here and recommence operations in South Africa, although that would cause it certain inconveniences.
In other words, this Bill is virtually an adoption provision: instead of the company being a child of an English Statute it would, if the Bill were passed, become the child of a South African Statute. Consequently, it would not be subject to our jurisdiction—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make my point. Consequently, the company would no longer be subject to our jurisdiction in respect of acts committed outside the territorial limits of our jurisdiction. In so far as the company has no assets in the United Kingdom, our present jurisdiction is limited to the power


to wind it up if it were not to pay a fine imposed for some hypothetical breach of sanctions regulations—

Mr. Whitaker: Is my hon. Friend saying that these people are guilty of an offence but that there are no assets to sequestrate to enforce the fine?

Mr. Whitlock: Not at all. It is my hon. Friends who are saying that there might be a breach of sanctions regulations. All I am saying is that under the present regulations our jurisdiction is limited to the power to wind up a company in the event of some hypothetical breach of the sanctions regulations. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Ellis: I must press this point. We asked for this assurance, about whether it would not indulge in trade with Rhodesia in the future, and we never got a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Whitlock: We have no evidence at all of the breaking of previous sanctions regulations. The company has not traded in the prohibited sectors so far and we have no evidence of the company investing in Rhodesia. As to any financial aspect of the company's emigration to South Africa, the Treasury consented to control being transferred to South Africa in 1951, since when it has for fiscal purposes been a resident of South Africa. The only practical effect of rejecting this Bill would be to prevent the company taking a particular course in the knowledge that other courses are open to it for the same ends. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that in full.
It is suggested that one result of the transfer of South African Breweries registration from London to South Africa would be to enable Rhodesia Breweries to transfer its frozen assets to South Africa. That is likely to be one result of the transfer of registration. My hon. Friends might like to consider the view that it is better for those funds to be made available to individual shareholders, be they British shareholders or South African shareholders, than to allow those funds to be frozen in Rhodesia where they are at present at the disposal of the trustee of blocked funds who could dispose of them in the manner the

illegal régime will decide to the best advantage of that regime.

Mr. McNamara: I realise that my hon. Friend has a very difficult part to play here. Is he aware that in the Committee the Chairman of the company said that the actual part of the profits of the Rhodesian concern were infinitesimal and the company would not be bothered about them? But is he also aware that if in fact they are unfrozen there is a vast area in which funds could pour into Southern Rhodesia and through the actual mechanics of the market they could be invested in South Africa? Once the money had arrived in South Africa we would have no control over it.

Mr. Whitlock: That may be true but the position is very much along those lines now. The whole case is that if this House does not allow this Bill to pass through, the South African Breweries will take steps to ensure that what the Bill seeks to achieve will in any case be achieved by another method.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I should like to join in the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) to the diligence and assiduity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, North—[Laughter.] I must explain that I have not been indulging in the products of South African Breweries. I have been carried away by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In paying tribute to my hon. Friends I draw a sharp distinction between the work they have done on this Bill and the cursory examination to which it has been subjected by the Board of Trade.
Had it not been for the work of my two hon. Friends, this Bill would probably have slipped through the House on the nod, in spite of what we have heard of this disgraceful state of affairs. I shall not vote for the Bill, for two reasons. The first is because it is clear from what has been said by my two hon. Friends that the promoters have been less than frank with the House. It


may be that their attitude has not amounted to a contempt of this House but to a contumacious attitude to the inquiries which my hon. Friends sought to make on this issue. I draw attention to the fact that the Chairman arrived at one of the Sittings of the Committee and was not briefed on the very important question of what would happen if the Southern Rhodesia elements of this company decided to take certain action not in accord with the wishes of this House.
The second reason is that I am not satisfied from what my two hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said that we shall not in some way be assisting in breaking sanctions by passing this Bill. It is all very well for them to say that the passage of the Bill will have little effect because there are other avenues in which the promoters can seek their desired end, but this House should not in any way give the semblance of approval, or even assist the passage of a Bill which would give assistance, to the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a most serious effect of passing the Bill would be to create a precedent which this House subsequently would find very difficult to resist?

Mr. Roebuck: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I make this criticism, in conclusion, of my two hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They have been at great pains to tell us that this is not a Government Bill, but we have had no firm expression from them of the Government's attitude towards the Bill. We do not know whether they are neutral, or whether, purely for the sake of administrative or bureaucratic convenience, they are prepared to see the Bill go through. I urge all my hon. Friends to vote against the Measure, even if there are other avenues available to the company, as an expression of disapproval of the illegal régime in Rhodesia and our determination to do nothing whatsoever to give it comfort.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move,
That the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 616), dated 16th April 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be withdrawn.
It may well be that in debating the Motion the House will experience a sense ofdeja vu, a sense of having been here before, since in many respects it is similar to the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order, 1967, which we debated a year ago. The object both of this Order and of the one which preceded it is in essence to change the prices and incomes criteria against which the Government's policy will be enforced in relation to prices and incomes. That is to say, it alters the criteria which need to be taken into account when it is attempted to justify either a price or a wage increase.
When I look opposite at the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am glad to learn, is to reply to the debate, I get a sense of nostalgia for the many debates we have had on previous Prices and Incomes Orders, although it is unfortunate that we should have abandoned the procedure which applied to Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. I do not think it is unfortunate that we lost Part IV, but it is unfortunate that the procedure whereby we debated these matters fairly rapidly after they came into effect has been lost, and now, whether it be on an Order affecting a group of workers or a price, instead of being able to debate it fairly rapidly, have to delay for some considerable time. The House will have noticed that some time has elapsed before we have had an opportunity of debating the Order, which is not concerned with a particular case, but with the criteria which shall apply to all the various cases which may arise under the Government's present Act.
A number of points need to be made in general terms. We have always maintained that the compulsory prices and incomes policy is undoubtedly ineffective. It is extremely unfair on certain groups, and at certain stages it tends to be counter-productive. It is, therefore, important that, when we come to consider


the Order and the criteria which it embodies, we should look at it in terms of a long-term prices and incomes policy. That is to say, we should not look at it as a temporary expedient, as we have on former occasions, but in the light of a policy which has continued for some years and which is likely to continue for some time yet, on the Government's own admission.
The fact of the matter is that the whole charade, which arose originally when the policy was adopted in a compulsory form, that somehow it was something that we would have to endure only for a short time, and where we had the Prime Minister saying on television that there was no question of further legislation, and so on, has been given up. It is stated clearly in the Government's White Paper that it is proposed to take the powers for 18 months and that these criteria shall now apply possibly for that period and may then be renewed.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister, speaking in a different context on 13th May, said again that they would not be renewed without further legislation. This is very much a case of once bitten twice shy. We do not attach much importance to the Prime Minister's remarks in this respect, because the Government's word has been broken time and time again on whether this policy will or will not be perpetuated. Somehow, they always find a reason for feeling that it is something which ought to be perpetuated time and time again.
I want to turn from that point and look at the criteria in the light of our experience over the last three and a half years, in which time we have passed from the halcyon days of the Declaration of Intent, where everyone was agreeable with the then First Secretary and the Department of Economic Affairs that a prices and incomes policy was a good thing and that we could all agree on the criteria, to a situation where reaction to the whole subject of a prices and incomes policy has grown increasingly antagonistic.
Although paragraph 4 of this Order says that there shall be consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. and that the Government needs to take account of the various interests involved under the prices

and incomes legislation, as they must, the fact is that there has been very little agreement on this policy which the Government are determined to push through come what may.
I turn now to the criteria, and I want to look at them in the light of the fact that the policy is likely to continue for some time, and has already. The temporary criteria are obviously not justified and are likely to have adverse effects if they are perpetuated for a considerable length of time. The Order this year extends the scope of the criteria to dividends, reductions in prices, rents, and awards of wages councils and agricultural wages boards. I wish to make some reference to that extension but, before doing that, I want to consider the basic criteria affecting the main areas of incomes and prices.
It is worth while looking for a moment at the appraisal which one can make of the present policy. I am distressed to find that it is still the case that a number of reputable journals such as theEconomist and other sources of information such as the National Institute for Economic and Social Research still feel that it is wrong to oppose a statutory incomes policy. On a previous occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary has called in aid the National Institute's Review of February of this year, arguing that it said that it would be a good thing to have a statutory incomes policy.
What really happened was strange. The Institute started by saying:
If an incomes policy can be devised which is strong enough to reduce the rise in weekly earnings from 6½ to 4½ per cent., there is a strong case for using it.
The crucial word is "if". The National Institute then went on to carry out a very thorough analysis in which it concluded that the statutory policy had had very little effect over and above that which might be due to natural forces. It even concluded that the statutory policy had had less effect than the policy adopted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) on a previous occasion, when statutory powers were not invoked, although undoubtedly a strong line was taken in the public sector. Having reached this conclusion, the National Institute went on to say that none the less it felt that a statutory policy was a good thing and that it even ought to be intensified.
I direct to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention this extraordinary line of thought of the National Institute: first, that it would be a good thing if it could be done; secondly, that it does not work; thirdly, that we ought to have more of it. This is something which needs to be brought out, because it is dangerous that one should have got into the frame of mind where somehow it is fashionable to support a statutory prices and incomes policy.
On the other hand, the Brookings Report on the British Economy, looking particularly at criteria of the kind embodied in the Order, takes a far less optimistic view than that taken by the National Institute and, indeed, increasingly questions whether, as time passes, this kind of policy and the adoption of the kind of criteria which are embodied in the Order do not in fact have an adverse rather than a favourable effect on the general state of the economy and on the ability of the economy to progress and on the ability of the economy to be conducted on an even keel.
It is clear that, apart from the question of investment, which tends to be controlled in other ways, the Order is an attempt to extend the powers and the criteria to almost every aspect of our economic life. This is something which we on this side cannot view with favour. We think that it should be opposed.
The Order alters Schedule II to the 1966 Act, instead of its altering the legislation which was pushed through the House earlier this year. The criteria are, by the Order, incorporated into the parent Act. It is extraordinary that, in relation to a policy which is supposed to be generally comprehensible, which small manufacturers are supposed to understand, and which members of trade unions are supposed to understand, we cannot tell what the position is on any particular price change or wage increase unless we have before us the 1966 Act, the 1967 Act, the 1968 Act, and this Order. This is not a satisfactory way of legislating.
In Committee this year my hon. Friends stressed very strongly that they thought that it was right and proper that the criteria should be incorporated into the current legislation as part of this year's Act. This has not happened. Therefore, this evening we must debate

the criteria which will amend the parent Act. There are three main criteria on which I want to concentrate. The first is the quantitative criterion. Under the Order there is to be a 3½ per cent. ceiling, provided that the various qualitative criteria for wage increases are met, but further increases above that 3½ per cent. ceiling are to be allowed in the case of productivity agreements. Secondly, there are the qualitative criteria for wage increases. Thirdly, there are the qualitative criteria for prices. On top of those, there are the various extended criteria to which I have already referred.
This Order, which it is proposed to incorporate into legislation, is a very unsatisfactory piece of drafting. I am not well versed in the technicalities of these matters, but there seems to be a peculiar situation here; we are writing into a parent Act references to matters outside the scope of the Act itself. It is at least arguable, for example, whether references to family allowances and such matters in the Schedule to the Order ought to be incorporated in legislation which did not originally go anywhere near referring to family allowances. The reference to family allowances arises in connection, for example, with lowest-paid workers, but there was no reference to family allowances in the parent Act. That is a technical point which we should look into and, perhaps, return to on a later occasion.
There are other paragraphs taken from the White Paper which now form part of the Order which are no more than platitudinous statements of what the Government hope will happen, without any direct reference to the basic criteria in the Order at all. Moreover, in paragraph 20 we have this sentence:
The goods and services to which these arrangements"—
that is, the early warning arrangements—
currently apply are listed in Part A of Appendix I, and, as announced in Parliament recently, the Government are in consultation with industry on the addition of further items to this list".
That is an extraordinary passage in the present context. We are asked to include in a Schedule to an existing Act wording which refers to a recent statement in the House about which the Government may have something to say later. It is bad craftsmanship gone mad,

and it arises from the extraordinary way in which the Schedule was originally incorporated in the 1966 Act and the amendments made to it subsequently.
I come now to the criteria. Apparently, we have a nil norm for most sectors of income, but if the qualitative criteria are met one can have up to 3½ per cent., and in the case of what the Prime Minister called copper-bottomed productivity agreements there may be increases allowed above that. What are the qualitative criteria for incomes? They appear on page 7 and can be summarised as the productivity criterion, the mobility criterion, the lowest-paid worker criterion and the "out of line with other workers" or comparability criterion.
The fundamental point here is that none of these criteria makes any allowance for a change in the demand for a particular kind of labour. The Brook-ings Institute pointed out in its study of the United Kingdom economy that, if one concentrates only upon cost questions, without reference to what happens to changes in demand, one will be unlikely to produce a reasonable distri-tion of economic resources. This may be bad enough in the short run, but if the policy is perpetuated year after year, distortion of this kind, which means that one does not allow for a particular industry wanting more labour in one area and less in another, will have greater and greater adverse effects on the economy.
Paragraph 32 presents another innovation, relating the question of national bargains to plant bargains. It says:
In considering increases settled at national level account must be taken of probable increases at local, company and plant level; conversely, increases in rates settled at the plan level should take account of relevant increases settled at other levels.
I do not need to ask the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite who have consistently opposed the policy, at any rate in its incomes and wages aspect, "How on earth is anyone at plant level to know what will happen at national level, and how is anyone settling the wage bargain at national level to know what is likely to happen at this or that plant, where a special arrangement about productivity, working hours or whatever it may be is likely to take

place? "Such a paragraph shows the complete unreality of the Government's policy and shows how they are divorced from the real way in which bargaining takes place throughout the country. That is only one example.
Similarly, on the question of comparability, paragraph 38 says:
The criterion justifying increases on grounds of comparability needs to be applied selectively, and must not be used to spread pay increases into areas of employment where the original justification does not apply.
What does that mean? Either there is a case for comparability or there is not. We need to know a little more from the Parliamentary Secretary about applying the criterion selectively.
I turn to what I think are now generally recognised as the two main criteria: the questions of the lowest paid worker and of productivity bargaining. We on this side of the House have always had doubts about whether the answer to our industrial problem is all the time to narrow wage and salary differentials. It has always seemed to us that the right solution to the problem of the lowest paid workers is to get them out of the industries which are lowest paid. This will not necessarily be brought about by the kind of policy the Government advocate.
The last two lines of page 7 state:
It will be necessary to ensure that increases under the low pay criterion are confined to low paid workers.
One might think that that was a reasonable point of view. One might also think it unnecessary to put that sentence in, but it brings out the point that the Government have never defined what is meant by low paid workers. Quite how we are to interpret this fascinating sentence is likely to remain something of a mystery.
The whole essence of the Government's policy has been the idea that there must be an increase in productivity, and that the policy is likely to bring it about. We on this side of the House had grave doubts about that, and the Prices and Incomes Order on the Birmingham car delivery drivers, which we debated some time ago, gave us good grounds for those doubts. There was then an agreement whereby a car delivery driver not only delivered a car to the docks but took an imported car from there to its


destination, or used a season ticket if tha was not possible. As a result of the Government's banging an order on the Birmingham car delivery drivers, productivity went down, and the Government never decided, month in and month out, whether or not it was a genuine productivity agreement, or whether the drivers should have legal action taken against them under the prices and incomes criteria.
It remains the case that paragraph 34(i) does not spell out any of the complexities, nor does Appendix II, based on the National Board for Prices and Incomes guidelines for productivity agreements, give us a sufficient basis for working out the effects of productivity agreements. It does not take account of the question of demand.
On page 7, in particular, emphasis is placed on the need to apply the criteria firmly. It is very important to ask, therefore, whether the Government are applying the criteria in the Order to wage levels in the nationalised industries.
There was a fascinating article in theEconomist on 13th July headed "Wrecked at Penzance." It referred to the recent rail dispute.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am confused about which of theEconomist articles the hon. Gentleman accepts and which he rejects. Can he give the dates of those that he finds unacceptable and the dates of those that he finds acceptable so that we shall understand how he is discriminating about these things?

Mr. Higgins: I am not being the least bit discriminating. I am saying that theEconomist on the whole has tended to support a statutory prices and incomes policy. Whenever it does so, the Opposition are under the impression that it is misguided. This has occurred in a number of articles over the last three years. But from time to time in its enthusiasm for the statutory policy theEconomist rightly gets very annoyed if the Government themselves do not stick to their policy. There is nothing inconsistent in either theEconomist attitude or my attitude. Those who are being inconsistent in this respect are the Government. They bring an Order before us and we debate it, it sets down certain

criteria, and the Government are not sticking to them. I should have thought that it was a perfectly reasonable attitude for me or theEconomist to adopt.
At all events, in an article on 13th July theEconomist says:
It is now apparent that both British Rail and ministers were making promises to the nation which they had not got the resolution to keep.
It goes on
even this week, even after the pass had been sold, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Richard Marsh, was telling the Commons that the Government had not intervened in the dispute, that the surrender at Penzance was in accord with the incomes policy, and that it will not involve the Government in eventually handing out even more financial help to the railways. It will be serious if Mr. Marsh, who is really a serious Minister, has anaethetised himself into believing his own canards. Let each of these statements therefore be most specifically contradicted.
It goes on—it is concerned with the criteria in this matter—to say:
Mr. Marsh professes confidence that the unions are anxious to sign a productivity agreement".
But the fact is that the arrangements have been made without the productivity deal being concluded. If there is one thing that we have been told time and time again it is that the Government policy is that it is no good saying that one is going to have a productivity agreement; it is a question of whether one has actually got it, and if not, one cannot get a wage increase—unless it is a nationalised industry.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must make clear to the House whether he, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, is objecting to the policy being broken and punctured or to the policy itself. He cannot be arguing both cases at the same time.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman always makes interventions of this kind and poses questions of the type "Have you stopped beating your wife? I do not accept this. I do not think there is anything inconsistent in my attitude or the attitude of theEconomist.
I quote one short passage more:
Last weekend thus spread the impression to the world that the Government does not believe in its own incomes policy (or, as far as Mrs. Castle and Mr. Marsh are concerned, apparently even understand what it is).


On this side of the House we have always regarded the statutory policy as one which is in many ways simply a gimmick —I shall return to that in a few moments —whether or not it has any quantitative effect on the economy.
With regard to prices, there has been no allowance in the criteria in the Order for what happens with regard to demand for particular goods or services. If the policy is to go on year in year out without taking account of changes in demand and consumer preferences, the distortions that one brings into the economy and the ways in which one freezes the pattern of production are likely to be very much greater.
I refer briefly to what I can only describe as the Government's post-devaluation schizophrenia, the way in which the Government have fallen between saying, on the one hand, "We must let prices rise because this will cut down demand and release resources for export," and, on the other hand "Whatever happens, we must not have any increases in prices because it will affect the cost of living."
I was amused by a statement of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity last weekend, when she said that we must not go back to the position we had a little while ago in which we could not keep prices down but incomes went up and then we had a situation in which imports were sucked in. This statement was originally made some years ago by one of my right hon. Friends. This point has finally got over to the Secretary of State, for which I am very grateful. But the Government are still adopting the attitude which came out clearly in an answer which the right hon. Lady gave to a supplementary question a few weeks ago on the question of devaluation. The Government are now saying that if the costs of imports and raw materials have gone up because of devaluation, price increases are justified. But if we ask what the situation is concerning price increases by a domestic producer of the same goods, the right hon. Lady says that in no circumstances could devaluation be allowed to justify a price increase.
But if we allow imported goods to go up in price and, therefore, the demand for the goods of the domestic producer increases, this surely justifies an increase in

the price of the goods of the domestic producer. If we do not allow that to happen, in the short run profitability and investment does not go up in import-substitute-producing industries and, therefore, we do not get in the long run either the import substitution effect or the long run reduction in prices which is justified. I therefore hope that the Minister appreciates that account needs to be taken of that point in relation to the producer of import substitutes. But certainly there is no allowance for this in the Order.
I wish to relate this to the public sector. While there is a series of criteria set out in the Order, there is no clear indication of whether the Government are adopting the same criteria for the nationalised industries. Many of us will have received in the post this morning a notification of the new inland letter service and the changes to be made in postal rates which effectively make a considerable increase in the costs of postal services. Although we are told that the service will not be any worse, we shall have to pay 5d. instead of 4d.—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend may well be right in saying, "Thank goodness for that." This amounts to a substantial increase in price quite outside the criteria set down in the White Paper, which limits increases to 3½ per cent.
The same is true about the extraordinary procedure concerning telephone charges in which the simpler system has been adopted of blanking off the bottom line of the slot machine. But, whether one considers telephone and postal charges or electricity and gas prices, the fact remains that the Government are asking us to adopt a set of criteria for price increases which they do not rigorously apply, despite the fact that they are trying to keep down incomes and are saying that the position is such that they should be firmly applied across the board.
I wish to say a few words about the quantitative effect of these criteria and to refer particularly to an interesting statement of the Under-Secretary of State during the Third Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill on 27th June. He said, when referring to the effect which we might expect of the Government's compulsory policy:
… during the next 18 months effective demand may be held back by 1, 1½ or 2 per cent. …


Its outcome will, perhaps, be a reduction of effective demand of about £200 million.
We accept that that is the hon. Gentleman's view, and, one presumes, the view of the Government, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always refused to say what allowance he made in his Budget calculations for the effect of the Prices and Incomes policy. It was therefore interesting to hear that statement, and I shall be fascinated to hear whether the hon. Gentleman repeats it, and whether he can confirm that the Chancellor made that interesting quantitative allowance when he made his Budget judgment. The extraordinary thing is that the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
To me and, I believe, to many of my right hon. Friends, this"—
that is the Statutory incomes policy—
is a far more pallatable way of doing it"—
that is capital aggregate demand—
than any of the other measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 894–5.]
which the Government are taking.
The fact is that not only are we saddled with this prices and incomes policy, but with the other measures, and we on this side of the House have grave doubts about the effectiveness of this policy. We believe that the criteria in this Order, if taken over a long period, will have an adverse, and not a favourable effect on the economy as a whole. Given that that is so, and given that perhaps the policy will seem to work because of the high level of unemployment that we have, none the less the policy is a failure. We believe that it ought to be condemned, and we shall register our opposition in the Lobby this evening.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Park: The purpose of the Order which is being prayed against is to lay down terms of reference as guidelines for the Prices and Incomes Board when it considers matters referred to it by Government Departments. It is not my wish unduly to take up the time of the House. Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I shall therefore confine myself to Section III of the White Paper which deals with incomes, and I shall hope to show why I believe that this section, whatever one may think of

other sections, constitutes a totally inadequate and potentially dangerous way of attempting to implement an incomes policy.
By laying down an arbitrary ceiling of 3½ per cent. on increases in incomes, and by declaring that increases even below that ceiling shall be subject to rigid and inflexible control, the Government are denying both to themselves and to the Prices and Incomes Board any degree of discretion, any quality of adaptability, and any bargaining initiative. One reason why the conciliation facilities of the old Ministry of Labour were so highly regarded on both sides of industry was precisely because that Ministry was able to deploy qualities of that kind. Because its hands were not tied by detailed frameworks of reference, it was able to suggest to the parties to a dispute new lines of approach and new ways of looking at the question in issue.
In doing so it could very often point the way to a settlement whereby industrial strife could be avoided and both parties could feel that their case had been partly, if not completely met. These are the very facilities which the Department of Employment and Productivity is now throwing away and, instead of acting as a mediator, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary prefers the rôle of a participant. Instead of producing a formula for the settlement of disputes she is now going to take the risk of inflaming and intensifying them by insisting that all agreements shall be consistent with an arbitrary framework which she claims the sole right not only to lay down but to interpret.
If this policy were carried to its logical conclusion every industrial dispute could become a political one and every strike a strike not against the employer but against the Government. Is that really what the Government want? It might not be their intention but there is no doubt that this will be the effect.
I want to give one example of my case—the example of the municipal busmen. Last week the municipal busmen and their employers had reached an agreement which was satisfactory to both sides. It was rejected by the Government because the Department took the view that the agreement failed to conform to the criteria laid down in the White


Paper. As a result we are now confronted with the imminent danger of a national bus strike, with all its consequences in terms of inconvenience to the public and loss of production and wealth to the nation. I profoundly hope that there is still time to prevent that strike taking place, but if it does take place the busmen, their employers and the public generally will be in no doubt what has caused it. The Government will have blocked the agreement, and the Government will get the blame.
I suggest that where, as in the case of the municipal busmen, there is a group of workers whose basic rates are below £13 a week and whose take-home pay is brought above this only by means of overtime or rest day working, and where the workers have been subject to standstill Orders under the Prices and Incomes Acts not once but three times in the last two years, there is a case for specially favourable treatment under the Government's incomes policy. Instead, the Government choose to make the busmen their major victims.
Earlier this year, in Liverpool, there took place one of the longest passenger transport strikes that has ever taken place. It was caused by the Government's policy. At the same time that the dispute was taking place increases in wages for dockers and tugboat men involving not the £1 of the busmen's claim but amounts of about £3 10s. a week were agreed upon with their employers. There was no reference to the Prices and Incomes Board in respect of the dockers and tugboat men, and there was no standstill under the Prices and Incomes Acts.
It is no part of my case to suggest that these increases were not deserved; I believe that they were. But I maintain that after the Prices and Incomes Board had ruled against the municipal busmen's claim on the ground that they were not lower-paid workers the logic of the Government in making no reference in the case of much bigger increases for workers already on higher rates makes no sense whatsoever.
Its only possible explanation lies in the need for all settlements to conform with such a rigid, contradictory and inconsistent set of criteria that at the end

of it all those whom we are told are intended to be the chief beneficiaries of the incomes policy are held up and those who are already in a stronger position are given the green light.
It is for these reasons that I cannot support the Order. If the Government really want the incomes policy to succeed, and if they want to recruit the support of the trade unions to work out some system of priorities in wage bargaining and the distribution of the social product, the best thing that they can do with the White Paper is not to refer it to the Prices and Incomes Board, but to tear it up, and to make a new start on the basis of voluntary discussion and agreement. In the end, this will be a position which the Government will be compelled to accept. I hope that they will have the common sense to accept it now, before the bitterness and the disillusion which has already begun is allowed to extend any further.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: We are debating this evening a major instrument of Government economic policy and I know that the Under-Secretary will be anxious to cover the many questions which are sure to arise. I have little to say, but it will be in the form of two questions about two paragraphs in the White Paper, as well as two general philosophical observations with which I will not expect him to agree. I will not feel particularly affronted if he chooses to disregard them, provided he can deal with all the specific questions which will come from both sides of the House.
The first point about the White Paper which interested me particularly, especially relating it to the now pending series of wage negotiations, was the remark in paragraph 37:
Moreover there can be above-ceiling increases for low paid workers under a settlement which, though covering a wider group of workers, is within the ceiling.
A fair interpretation of that is that the move towards equal pay in the engineering industry between men and women, which we now see accelerating, is, presumably, regarded by the Government as coming within the disciplines of that paragraph.
It is important that we should know this, because it means that the move


towards equal pay presumably comes within the category of increases of up to 3½ per cent. Inasmuch as they are redistributed, it will be within that discipline of 3½ per cent., to the advantage of women and the disadvantage of men. In other words, the move towards equal pay will have to be made at the expense of men's rates and earnings within that discipline. I should like confirmation on that point.
Second, I refer to paragraph 32, which is particularly interesting in relation to the national engineering settlement—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is nowhere near a settlement."]—No, I agree; it is nowhere near a settlement, and it will not facilitate a settlement if we get a specific answer from the Under-Secretary, but all those who will negotiate that settlement will want this question clearly and decisively answered, so that the engineering claim is not subject to last-minute Government intervention, with all the bitterness which that might occasion.
Paragraph 32 says:
Changes in rates or scales may be settled at national, local, firm or plant level, but … the application of the ceiling requires that the overall increases should not exceed the 3½ per cent. ceiling.
The present national negotiation in the engineering industry clearly foreshadows a series of local plant settlements to follow. Indeed, I am certain that the experience of many hon. Members on both sides would suggest that this is inevitable. Many people would say that it is particularly welcome.
Have the Government any idea of the extent to which they see the 3½ per cent. being pre-empted by the national negotiations and how much is to be left for application to local settlements? They must know from past experience of engineering awards what are the consequences of a national settlement and what are the local implications. The Undersecretary must make it clear, if only for those who have to conduct national negotiations, the extent to which they feel that the 3½ per cent. has to be reduced to take account of the local settlements which they think will follow from the national agreement, when it is negotiated.
May I turn to two general philosophic speculations about the White Paper and the policy? The political manipulation of incomes is a highly unpopular system,

as the Under-Secretary finds whenever it is debated and as he is always reminded by hon. Members behind him. As a result of this, the Government are obliged to engage in what I regard as something not very moral—almost near-bucket-shop salesmanship for this policy.

Mr. Stanley Henig: Oh.

Mr. Biffen: I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) would not know a bucket shop if he saw one.
I am thinking in particular of the claim that this policy promotes the interests of lower-paid workers. There is, again, a reference to that in paragraph 8 of the White Paper which says that
There must be protection for the poorer sections of the community".
It is often asserted by the Government that this policy of Government intervention results in relative improvements in pay for those who are at the lower end of the incomes scale. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) is rightly sceptical of that claim.
I was particularly interested the other day to read an article which appeared in the Poverty Action Group Magazine by Mr. John Hughes, of Ruskin College, Oxford, who discussed "Low Pay and Incomes Policy". That was the title of his article. I will quote only his conclusions. Doubtless the Under-Secretary is aware of the body of the argument. He concluded:
If incomes policy is viewed, as it should be, in its combination with other Government economic policies bearing upon the position of the low paid worker, the balance that results from the last three years in an adverse one for the low paid.
That is not the judgment of Aims of Industry but of someone from Ruskin College and it is an argument which deserves some attention from the Undersecretary.
The second point of philosophic observation which I want to make concerns paragraph 43 and the idea that productivity is the one way whereby one can escape from the squirrel's cage of this policy and the disciplines which it involves. Let us for one moment enter the temple of the high priest himself—Mr. Aubrey Jones and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This becomes a test case. Only recently my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) by dint


of Questions, discovered that the National Board for Prices and Incomes was paying 8 per cent. more for secretarial hired people than a year ago. Secretarial rates of pay have been referred to the Board. They know all about it. But they are still paying 8 per cent. more. One is troubled by this. There are 40 per cent. more of them employed besides the Board paying 8 per cent. more per employee. Is this policy justified by the productivity of the National Board for Prices and Incomes? How do we judge the Board's productivity? Is it by the number of reports— the mere counting of words? No, it is not such an unskilled exercise as that. I assume that it is the quality of the reports.
We do not know much about the quality of the P.I.B. reports. Certainly they receive astringent comment from people who are often in a position to judge; namely, those who know a great deal more about the subjects under inquiry than Mr. Aubrey Jones and his staff. However, we have no idea how much work has gone into each report, how much has been paid to the consultants who are hired to produce them, and so on. There is no way in which we can test the productivity of the P.I.B.. although we know that its staff has increased, as has the pay of its staff, on a scale which must make the busmen envious.
Although I choose this rather piquant example of productivity at work, we know of the difficulties that there are in the service industries to measure productivity and how the so-called arguments for productivity become more difficult to justify particularly for those in low-paid employment—hospitals and so on—compared with those employed in manufacturing industry. This makes one sceptical of the way in which the word "productivity" is tossed around in such specific terms as though it has the language of being watertight, copper-bottomed and stringently tested. The Chancellor must know every qualification of productivity by heart. Hardly a weekend goes by without a Ministerial statement saying that there must be genuine productivity. Where is the genuine productivity in the work of Mr. Aubrey Jones and his staff?
The opening paragraph of the White Paper says:

We now have a real basis for putting our balance of payments into substantial surplus.
Presumably, a real basis exists because the exchange rate has been altered. The Government have been driven to recognise the price mechanism, but they are unwilling to accept the implications of a price mechanism, which is to allow it to operate freely in the domestic market, which is the one sure way of making certain that devaluation works.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: As has been said, this Order writes the White Paper into what one might describe as the folk law of the prices and incomes policies to have been mounted since the original Measure of 1966. This is, in a way, an extremely important item, because it will be used as the background criteria on which the Government will either submit a case to the P.I.B. or hold up a settlement. This is, therefore, the criteria which will cover prices, charges, incomes, rents, rates and all other issues.
It is surprising to note that, while paragraph 34 of the Instrument contains the criteria by which increases may be allowed—virtually anything could get through this criteria; one could justify almost any case, including those which are at present being stopped—paragraph 27 deals with restraints and is more rigid. It concludes by saying:
In addition the Government have decided that for all wage and salary settlements reached on or after 20th March, 1968, which satisfy these criteria and considerations, there will be a ceiling of 3½ per cent.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood, adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Prices and Incomes may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of one and a half hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Orme: In the Act that we passed a short time ago no norm was mentioned at all. In the Second Reading debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said:
… there is no mention in the Bill of the ceiling itself—the famous 3½ per cent.—or of


the criteria spelt out in the White Paper which set the framework for the whole policy. There is no sinister significance in this—no weakening on any aspect of the policy. In fact, the criteria are already operating. In accordance with normal practice I have already used my power under Section 4 of the 1966 Act … ". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 313.]
That is pretty clear. Many people felt when the criteria did not appear in the Bill that the Government had dropped them between the issue of the White Paper and the presentation of the Bill, but this is not so. Some people believed that, but I never did. I have always considered the 3½ per cent. to be included.
On the aspect of which claims can be allowed, everyone on this side knows that daily and weekly in industry settlements are being made in all types of industry, and because of the vastness of the subject and the impossibility of setting up all the paraphernalia and machinery one cannot follow all that is going on in the industrial life of our present complicated mixed economy. In consequence, thousands, indeed millions, of workers go on unheeded and unimpeded by this policy, but when the Government think it suitable from their point of view to put the brake on any increase, they implement the policy. As has been said, they have done that in relation to the municipal busmen.
They started in the same way in relation to the railwaymen, which was in itself an extremely interesting case. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised this case, but he did not say that at the time when it was referred to in the House and many of us on this side were pressing for a settlement we got no support from that side of the House in relation to the lower paid workers in the railway industry. In fact, hon. Members on this side below the Gangway were very much lone voices in fighting for a settlement.
It is interesting to read in connection with the railwaymen's settlement what is said in the paragraph 37 of the White Paper:
It will be necessary to ensure that increases under the low paid criterion are confined to low paid workers.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) pointed out so pertinently in the House, a hole was blown in that one. Further, a settlement

was arrived at without the copper-bottomed productivity agreement about which we have heard so much, although it is assumed that an agreement will be arrived at by 2nd September. There is no guarantee of that. In consequence, that breaches the policy in relation to the lower paid worker, the norm granted to the higher-paid worker and the productivity basis. This sort of thing makes nonsense. Paragraph 34 is gobbledegook. It does not make sense.
The Government are trying to base the case relating to municipal busmen on a productivity agreement. A constituent wrote to me a week or two ago drawing my attention to a £1 a week rise which was agreed last December for provincial busmen and was frozen until 26th July. I received a reply from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary today in which he draws attention to the fact that not only has the rise been frozen until 26th July but that it is extended until the end of the year.
The basis for this is apparently that the productivity agreement cannot be reached, and although the employers and the unions agreed on the settlement last December, they cannot find ways and means of paying the increase. This is absolutely ironic. I have never known a case before in which employers and unions agreed and the amount could not be paid. The chairman of the transport committee of my local authority, who is not a member of the Labour Party, said last weekend that he was prepared to go to prison to see that the busmen of Salford are paid the increase.
This becomes a political issue. It is no longer an industrial issue. As so many of us said on Second Reading, we find the Government are at the centre of every price increase and every wage increase whether it is settled amicably or not. This is a ludicrous position. What effect does this have upon the economy? What effect will it have in future? We have the railway agreement and the busmen's issue and an interlude when Mr. Hambro gets an increase as chairman of one of the national banks. All these issues are before us and we find that the Department of Employment and Productivity is not just playing its rôle as mediator but actually coming down into the market place of negotiations. That is a pretty rough place. I would not


doubt that my right hon. Friend can take care of herself, but will this achieve the economic objective which the Government want and the working people demand? I do not think it will. All this talk of a threat of statutory powers is complete nonsensical rubbish. If the municipal busmen, in contradiction of this Order, take industrial action, what are the Labour Government to do about it?

Mr. James Hamilton: I am following the argument of my hon. Friend closely and agree with many of the statements he has made. Can he tell me how busmen who are prepared to operate a productivity agreement put to them by my right hon. Friend can do so when they have not the buses to operate it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the problem of the busmen in detail except as it applies to the criteria laid down here.

Mr. Orme: I recognise the problem and I am trying to keep within the terms of the criteria and the productivity agreement which the Ministry wants to make. In the City of Salford we neither have one-man buses nor are there any on order. How we can implement that part of it, I do not know. I think he sees the point I am making.
Many of my hon. Friends want to speak on this matter and I do not wish to detain the House. We started the Session with this subject and we end with it. I want to see the end of this approach of the Government. It has been proved by the trade unions and by the people of this country that this policy will not work in the present economy and in the type of society that exists. It is backed by powers which could be used but which many people do not believe ever will be used. Nevertheless, the powers are there, and they are punitive powers. I think it is time that this policy once and for all was dropped. The writing of those criteria into the Prices and Incomes Acts of 1966, 1967 and 1968 will not help to bring a rational economic policy to the country. It will only confuse the issue and add problems that we on this side of the House want to see the back of.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak, and that this debate will finish at 11.30 p.m.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I will give three reasons picked at random why my hon. Friends and I believe that the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order should be withdrawn.
The first reason is that it is a bad and peculiar way of legislating. The Schedule comes of a long lineage. It is almost like a slide being put into a projector, shown on a screen and then, as soon as people have seen it, another one being shown. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) spoke of the criteria providing the background against which the policy is supposed to be carried out. It is a changing background, rather like a rifle range, where the characters are constantly moving across the scene. It produces not clarity of thought but muddled understanding of what it is all about.
The people of this country would not so much mind a coherent and firm line of economic strategy, but they detest this muddled and constantly changing framework, which is made of elastic rather than of steel, within which they are supposed to act. That is my first reason for believing that this is a bad way of bringing about the aims which the Government seek to achieve. It is an extremely poor and dangerous way of legislating.
The second reason why I support so strongly our proposal that the Order be withdrawn is that it is based on out-of-date economics. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill this year that all advanced thinking was on the side of the kind of ecenomics contained in the criteria. When one reads the criteria it is hard to understand what that advanced thinking must involve—the thinking perhaps of people who are advanced in age, but not, I am afraid, advanced in the understanding of economics. As hon. Members have pointed out, the White Paper is riddled with economic fallacies. There is a query about the famous first paragraph of which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has already quoted the first


line, but there is an even bigger query on the third line.
We are told that these criteria will give us an opportunity for the economy to sustain a faster rate of growth and a higher level of employment than was possible before devaluation. That is a pretty bizarre claim in the light of present trends.
However, that is only one aspect. Throughout, there is the "must" of the kind of macro-economics of Cambridge in the late 1950s, whence, I suspect, much of this thinking comes, in which it is suggested that the economy must be managed by a transfer of resources from home consumption to producing goods for export and import saving. There is the belief throughout that the economy can be moved round as if it comprised a series of blocks and they were being pushed here and there by magic hands in Whitehall. However, that is not how a modern economy operates, and that kind of approach will not produce results.
Then there is the tedious and almost hilarious contradiction over prices and the insistence that unjustifiable price increases will be prevented. We have the introduction of this curious concept of the "justified" price, that some prices are justified and some are not. We have the complete dismissal of the fact that any housewife faced with price increases engineered by Government tax increases and following from devaluation will not accept that price increases of such an amount will be justfiable and that anything above will not be. These are consequential increases and forces acting on each other which put up prices or reduce the quality of goods while maintaining their price right across the economy. The Government are living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that they can hold a price to a "justified" level of increase and that everything above that will be stopped. There again, the economics are out of date or even non-operative.
There is very much of this attitude and belief that the economy can be pushed around like coloured liquids in a child's chemistry set. That may have been the view of economics eight or nine years ago, but, since then, there has been a vast increase in the knowledge of how the economy works and important developments in the technique of economic management.
Above all, it ignores splendidly and heroically the whole question of the public sector and Government spending. It seems to believe that the aims of holding down wages and prices can be achieved against the background of a growth of public expenditure which is chaotic. I think that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must be the last man in the land to believe that public expenditure is under control and on target. It is not and, as long as it is not, the arguments in the White Paper will not work.
Perhaps most important of all, there is the fundamental fallacy and what might almost be termed the obsession about wages. However, any comparison of wages and hourly earnings in this country with those in other countries is an unfavourable one. Wage levels in this country are not excessive, and our problems will not be solved by hitting wages. In fact, it is not an economic proposition but a political obsession of an undesirable kind.
My third reason for objecting to the Order is that it is so hypocritical. It is dressed up in the proposition that it is something to do with social justice, yet it has been shown time and time again that there is very little social justice in it. We read in paragraph 48 a desperate attempt to pretend that the legislation should apply not merely to workers in firms employing over 100 men but to everyone. How is it proposed to include everyone?
We have heard the proposition put forward about proposed settlements which might be significant and that these are the ones to be covered. But, I ask, significant to whom? Who is to report whom? Who is to register that this kind of claim for certain people or firms employing under 100 should be reported? It is left in thin air. For the vast majority of workpeople—18 million out of 24 million; that is, all except the 6 million in firms employing over 100— there is a vagueness as to their position under the policy. This is one good reason why there is litle justification for the claim that this stands on a basis of social justice.
Secondly, it makes great play of the restraint on dividends, which hon. Members opposite think is a valuable part of the policy. It did not need the arguments which were advanced in Committee


to show that dividend restraint is a very hollow thing. It has its effects, and will have its effects, in distorting the capital market and in driving people to other ways of organising their affairs, but as a device for achieving social justice it does not get off the ground.
There are the other mentions in the criteria about the whole field of wage restraint, where again hon. Members opposite think that a great blow is being struck for social justice. However, the main effect of rent restraint is in its application to council house tenants. That would be tolerable if it were still a fact, which it is not, that the poorer section of the community live in council houses. That was a wonderful and no doubt justified belief of the 1950s. It is no longer so. There is evidence to show that the end result of restraining rises in council house rents is that the ratepayers pay; and the ratepayers include many people with lower incomes than those living in council houses. So there is no social justice there, either.
It may seem odd that I am worried because there is no justice in the Order. In fact I am not worried. It does not surprise me. I am not even sure that I am full of regret, because many of us on this side do not believe that this obsession with equality of treatment— with sameness of condition—is a legitimate or attainable aim of Government. What we fear are the consequences when a Government perform this hypocritical role, when they promise what they cannot provide, when they use language about ideals which they are not attaining by their actions. We do not care if the Government destroy themselves by pushing through this silly Order, but if in doing so they erode and weaken our institutions, if they bring our politicians and the House into disrepute, we cannot stand back.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: It was rather unseemly of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) to accuse the Government of hypocrisy in the matter of the wages and incomes policy. If ever there were a case of hypocrisy, it is in the attitude of hon. Members opposite, because, whereas they want to enjoy the benefits of a wages

and incomes policy, they are not prepared to accept the responsibility.
It is clear that those hon. Members opposite who accept the principle of a wages and incomes policy, as I do, though not necessarily wholly in the form presented by the Government, must equally be prepared to accept that criteria are an inevitable concomitant of such a policy. Merely to dismiss these general considerations as if they are irrelevant to the theme of a wages and incomes policy is to seek to have the best of both worlds in a profoundly hypocritical form.
I say that it is necessary to have criteria, but if criteria are to be effective they must be precise. Nothing can be more disastrous than imprecision in the criteria which are related to a policy of this kind.
The question on which I shall concentrate tonight is: what is a low-paid worker? There is no guidance in the White Paper which is worthy of acceptance. Paragraph 34 provides:
for increases in the following circumstances … (iii) where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living".
It was on that vague and indeterminate statement that the National Board for Prices and Incomes came to its conclusions about the municipal busmen. What was the ruling of the Prices and Incomes Board? It said that the busmen were not low-paid workers because their average earnings were £20 9s. 6d. for conductors and £22 5s. 9d. for drivers. But those earnings are achieved by busmen only by working disgracefully long hours.
The basic rate for a top bus driver is £12 17s. a week. The balance comes from overtime, from working rest days— and working rest days, be it noted, in a way which has been condemned and against which it has been sought to legislate through the Transport Bill. Plainly, the so-called 40-hour week for busmen is a complete illusion. The earnings which busmen have achieved have been achieved by what one can only call sweated labour. They can bring themselves up to the figures given by the Prices and Incomes Boad only by working fantastically long hours.
Moreover—these figures may surprise the House—20 per cent. of the platform


staff among municipal busmen are today working up to 60 hours a week. It is a disgrace to a country such as ours in modern rimes that men have to work up to 60 hours a week in order to escape from the arbitrary category of low-paid workers laid down by the Prices and Incomes Board, following the criteria in the White Paper.
In addition, municipal bus workers—I give this in further illustration of the way the criteria operate—have to work 8½ hours extra a week in order to earn the national average for all industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot discuss the problem of the busmen in detail on this Order, which raises the question of criteria.

Mr. Edelman: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I am arguing that, in order to establish what is a low-paid worker, it is important to examine the way in which a worker's earnings are achieved. In the case of the bus worker, only through such an analysis can one examine and judge the criteria laid down in the White Paper. I respect your Ruling, but I hope that you will allow me to pursue the illustration for a moment or two. I think that it will add to the instruction of those who are concerned to consider the value of the White Paper.
Bus workers work almost the longest hours for about the lowest hourly pay. That being so, as they work for the lowest hourly pay, the Prices and Incomes Board must have been wrong in rejecting their claim on the basis that they are not low-paid workers.
I come now to another criterion for assessing whether an increase should be allowed. This is paragraph 34(ii):
where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower (or to prevent a change which

would otherwise take place) and a pay increase would be both necessary and effective for this purpose.
A quarter of the municipal bus undertakings in this country are 20 per cent. short of staff. If it is necessary to raise the wages of such men in order to correct that drift, as envisaged in the White Paper, this, surely, is a striking case in which action should be taken.
I conclude with this appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in her absence. In the past few days, I have wondered what the late Ernie Bevin would have said about some of the criteria in the White Paper had he been acting for some of the low-paid workers. We all know the regard in which he held my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I cannot help feeling that, had he been alive today and were he acting as counsel for the busmen or any other low-paid workers, his retort to my right hon. Friend's rejection of the wage claim would be, "I am not having it". There will be many today who will react in the same way to the interpretation of the criteria in the White Paper.
I said at the beginning that the only sin in determining criteria in a matter of this kind is vagueness. The paragraph dealing with low-paid workers can only have a subjective interpretation, which I believe in the present context of the busmen is completely invalid. There are objective means in which the criteria can be assessed. I suggest that by those objective methods of assessing the busmen's rate of pay the application of the criteria as expressed in the White Paper stands condemned, and I hope that the Minister will be flexible, will think again, and in that way avert a national strike which would be damaging to everyone concerned.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I remind the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) that during the debate in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Act on part of the criteria a number of questions were more than once put to the Government on whether the criteria and the Bill were being rushed through in order to catch the busmen. We were given assurances that that was not so. Perhaps they were meant then, but it is interesting that one of the first actions under the new Act is, as the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and a number of other hon. Members suggested in Committee would be the case, that the criteria and the Bill were used against the busmen. Note should be taken of the Government's double-dealing on that.
I wish to speak particularly about the criteria because I tried very hard to rewrite them. I tried to make quite clear exactly what they meant without all the Government double-talk. It seemed to me that their whole basis was that the Government were saying, as is clearly the real interpretation of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Order, "There is only a slight chance of our putting our balance of payments into a substantial balance under the present Government and of repaying our debts, and it has been made more difficult by the policy we have pursued in the past".
The interesting thing about these criteria is that this is the fourth lot the House has had to consider; this is the fourth Order altering the way in which the prices and incomes policy has to operate. On each occasion the Government have said, "This is all that is necessary". The country were assured that once this aspect of the prices and incomes policy was put into operation the whole purpose which the Government had been struggling to achieve for years and years would be brought to success.
The way in which the Government are pursuing the present prices and incomes policy is like a geometric progression, because at each turn, with more and more controls, it is necessary not to duplicate controls to stop up the holes that they happen to have made in their past policy but to quadruple them. The length and extent of the Government's criteria show that this is a geometric

progression both in their length and the powers taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) gave an illustration of comparability in regard to paragraph 38 of the criteria. He asked what it meant. It means that consideration of arguments for wage increases should not necessarily include the ground of comparability. But it does not say so. This is the point about the document. The Government are not being fair to the workers, the people who are having to bargain or the employers. They mean a great deal more than the words they use in the document. They are implying much greater stringency than the words that they publish. They are suggesting that there shall be a nil norm and that there shall not be comparability.
Two hon. Members opposite asked for the interpretation of paragraph 34. It means that if one works harder one might get an increase. That is all. What happens about persons who ought not to be producing more and ought not to have greater productivity? How does the man who ought not to be having greater productivity get a wage increase? I refer to the man working on quality and reliability inspections. One does not want him to turn out any greater inspections. If he is doing that, he is not doing the job properly. What about a safety engineer, who ought to be doing only what he can do and what he is set to do in any given time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members opposite may laugh about it and say "Rubbish", but they do not know much about industry.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: rose—

Mr. Emery: Sit down for a moment. Many accusations are made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to our calm and placid debate.

Mr. Emery: I am only too delighted to do so, Mr. Speaker. If some hon. Members suggest that I have not done a day's work, my first job in life was in a labour gang with a pick and shovel, which is more than can be said of the hon. Gentleman opposite. So perhaps he will be quiet.
There are a number of jobs in industry where it would be wrong for any cost and works accountant or any other person judging productivity to suggest that that either speed or alteration in working on the part of people ought to increase their work burden. If so—there are many instances—how does that person qualify for a rise? Perhaps it is something about which the Government are not concerned irrespective of how much they put up prices, taxation and the cost of living.
That is the policy of the criteria. That is what the first four paragraphs of the criteria spell out. It is the Government's intention that prices shall rise but there shall be no equivalent wage increase. That is the Government's policy in the Budget and in the criteria. Let the Minister try to deny that when he defends the criteria. He knows that that is the policy, but he does not want it put in those words. It is for that reason more than any other than I urge hon. Members to oppose these criteria.
The Government are indulging in another bout of double dealing. They are trying to tell the trade unions and industry generally that they are not working in the way spelled out by the criteria here set out. This is exactly what they have done to the busmen. They say, "We do not want this to catch you, but let us get it through", and the moment the measure is passed it is used to catch people like the busmen.
The whole basis of the Order is such that in a year's time it will have to be strengthened. We are faced with the fact that by these criteria, and by the penal sanctions which are available to them, the Government are able to control all aspects of wages, prices and investment policy. It is for that reason as much as any other that the country is now in such a sorry state and we are required to deal with this legislation in a mere 90 minutes of debate. Luckily we have been able to get an extra hour to discuss this Order. This is the way in which the Government have arranged their legislation. They can slide this Order through under the provisions of the Act. They can slide these alterations through with the minimum of debate, and without the possibility of amendment by the House. This is wrong, and I ask hon. Members to oppose this Order.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I am afraid that I am going to upset my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, possibly because of alliances on other issues, might have expected more support from me than he will receive. I must, rather unusually, join forces with some of my hon. Friends who normally sit on these benches, and take objection to certain aspects of the Order.
I am concerned with a slightly different aspect from those which have received most attention this evening, namely, what seems to me to be a differentiation between above the ceiling and below the ceiling settlement of wage increases. I like to think that when the Minister replies he will be able to relieve my anxieties, but I am rather inclined to doubt it.
Below the 3½ per cent. ceiling certain criteria are laid down. The most important of these is that the workers in question shall be lower paid. We have had arguments about what is a lower-paid worker. I do not intend to take much notice of what has been said from the other side of the House. Most of us on this side know what a lower-paid worker is, and know what sort of wages he receives.
A lower paid worker may apply for a rise. It is a rise justified only on the basis that he is lower paid in relation to other people, the rise will be limited to 3½ per cent. Somebody else who is able to make a genuine productivity deal—and let us accept that there is such a thing as a genuine productivity deal— may get a rise of much more than 3½ per cent. In other words, as a result of this Order the differential between a lower-paid worker and a higher-paid worker will not be reduced as we on this side want, but will be increased, because it frequently happens that those who are in a position to agree to productivity arrangements are those who, relatively speaking, are already better paid.
Let me relate that to the municipal busmen.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that those with higher wages should sacrifice the increased rate so that lower-paid men can get more instead of getting an equal amount?

Mr. Henig: I am arguing that the basic criteria for any incomes policy that I would like to see introduced by the Government would be in favour of a redistribution of incomes, but I am afraid that this policy may, in the way that I have indicated, not do this, but rather, penalise the lowest-paid workers.
I wanted to take briefly the simple case study of a group of people to whom the incomes policy has already been applied—the municipal busmen. There is not much doubt about the proposition that the municipal busmen are one of the lower-paid groups of workers. For a basic working week a municipal busman earns less than all sorts of other people —and much less than a London busman earns. I am not convinced that it is all that more difficult to drive in London than it is to drive along winding country lanes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue the differential rates between London and provincial busmen.

Mr. Henig: I accept that, Mr. Speaker—but it may be extraordinarily difficult for a municipal busman to reach any kind of agreement based on increased productivity—because if he is driving his bus the concept of increased productivity must necessarily be different from the concept of increased productivity for certain other professions. One would not want to advocate his driving his bus faster, or over the pavement if there were a traffic jam.
As for the question of one-man buses, the argument presupposes that one-man buses are available—and in the area that I represent this is not the case. It is a dangerous trend. We have reached a state of affairs when this policy, which sets out ostensibly to help the lower-paid workers, might end up by allowing only those who are not lower-paid to get these extra increases over and above the ceiling.
Secondly, it is laid down that the workers who are involved in these productivity agreements should not necessarily receive the full fruits of their increased productivity. I want to know exactly how this policy works. Does it mean that we shall measure a particular agreement and say, "This agreement

will add 7½ per cent. to the productivity of this firm. The workers should take 6½ per cent., leaving 1 per cent. for redistribution round the rest of the country"? That would be fine, but I have a feeling that the workers will say, "Nonsense; that 1 per cent. will go straight into the pockets of our employers". This seems to be a muddle, and I should like my hon. Friend to explain it.
My basic reservation concerns prices. My great fear is that the introduction of this Statutory Instrument, coming on top of what has already been done, will make the Government responsible for something which, basically, they cannot control. The Government are in a position, through the National Board for Prices and Incomes or any other body, to control the prices of thousands of individual goods sold in the shops, or that the early warning system will operate.
Occasionally it is my misfortune to be sent out shopping, and in the supermarkets one finds that everything is "2d. Off This Week", or "3d. Off This Week", or that one gets a tube of toothpaste together with a mug. Many of these items have long ceased to have any basic retail price in real terms, as they affect the customer—the housewife—and an increase in the price becomes meaningless. It is certainly something that will not be registered in an office in London, but it will be registered by the housewife. Previously she was justified in blaming the manufacturer for the increase in price. Now the Government are offering a free bonus to their opponents. The housewife is now able to blame the Government for the rise in price, which situation none of us on this side of the House can accept with equanimity.
I want to take up a hint from the other side of the House about nationalised industries. If the Government are serious about keeping down prices, I would like them to start on that sector which is or should be 100 per cent. responsible to demands from the Government. I am most concerned because, over recent months, it has sometimes seemed to the public, rightly or wrongly, that, far from keeping prices down, the nationalised industries have been leading the race to raise them.
When we vote on this Order, and despite my observations, I will vote for it, which will, no doubt, surprise certain people. My fundamental objection to the Order is that it is politically misconceived. It is making a dirty word of a prices and incomes policy which we in the Labour movement want to see firmly established to make possible real redistribution of income, and it talks of Government responsibility for things which cannot be done. The political damage of this will be great. However, since the Government have resisted all our blandishments and have gone ahead, I think that the political damage would be far greater if we got it through in the most damaging way possible, with the Government having another wafer-thin majority. That is why I will, personally, support it, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Sccretary—and others of my hon. Friends—will answer some of the points which I raised.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I think that the whole House enjoyed hearing the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) wrestling with his conscience over what he should do in the Lobby tonight. I sympathise with his dilemma on the choice between passing the Order and ruining the Labour Party, since a return to a free market determination is clearly too much for him. I assure him that it is not such a difficult choice as he seems to make out. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery) is right and that we are descending into an ever more vicious spiral as a result of this policy.
The Secretary of State "said in Committee:
What we are doing here is not merely continuing existing powers but extending them in a number of very important respects which we have discussed exhaustively duing the proceedings of the Committee. We have the powers branching out in various new fields; we have the extension of the standstill for both prices and incomes; we have the power to secure reduction in prices; we have powers over rents; we have the new compulsory restraint over dividends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee F, 18th June, 1968; c. 1094.]
That is the glorious, positive new policy for productivity of which the Government boast so much.
I would like to compare these pious aspirations with what has happened in the case of the railwaymen. They have been awarded a settlement which, apparently, meets the Government's prices and incomes criteria, yet all that they have given in return for wage increases right up to the ceiling is a vague promise of a productivity bargain to come. Does the Under-Secretary consider that that promise of a productivity agreement comes within the terms of paragraph 34(7), the productivity paragraph, and within the repeated and endless talk by the Government about copper-bottomed productivity deals? No one thinks so.
One is tempted to remember the debate last week, when the Secretary of State argued so convincingly and vehemently that bargains could not be made enforceable. One sees immediately the Government's dilemma, because every time they come to a major settlement with the railwaymen, the busmen or the engineers, which threatens to go over the limit of the policy, they have in the end to back down because they know that it could not be made enforceable. The prospect of the Labour Party turning out the sort of proposals which Donovan put forward and which my right hon. Friends put forward as the structure of trade union law and at the same time bringing in penal sanctions leading to prison for people acting against the prices and incomes legislation is extraordinary.
There is another point about the criteria which acts flatly against Donovan —the extraordinary investigation into every detail of the settlement. If there are to be a number of settlements composed of national, regional and plant agreements, all must come within the 3½ per cent. ceiling. Every plant bargain, all the way down the line, must be investigated, reported on and, if necessary, referred to the Board. How on earth can productivity agreements and plant bargains be reached in such circumstances? The policy of Donovan which we considered last week and the policy in the criteria are moving in completely opposite directions.
I return to the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster. I wonder whether it is worth selling the Labour Party for this mess of potage. It has been said that it might mean the saving of £200 million a year of total demand. I believe that that figure has been set far too


high, but, even if it were right, it would be selling the Labour Party for a mess of potage to go through all the heat and hell of this summer, in the by-elections, the public opinion polls, fights with the trade unions and disputes leading hon. Members below the Gangway to joining forces with my hon. Friends in Division after Division, for the saving of £200 million from total demand. The total tax yield this year is about £14,000 million. We are going through all this trouble for £200 million in one year. To those who say that the Tory Party will need an incomes policy, I reply that it is clear that by being slightly more accurate in manipulating total demand we can do without such a policy altogether.
I believe that wage increases will moderate this year. They will not be as high in total as last year, not because of the policy of the criteria or because of the appalling wrangles which we have had about what is a lower paid worker and what is a productivity bargain—all these details which have been dragged before the House—but because the Chancellor increased taxation to nearly enough to cover his total expenditure. That is why wage increases will be moderated this year.
It seems extraordinary that for the tiny sum of £200 million a year, which could be saved simply by cutting out a number of civil servants and by cutting out all the nonsense which the Labour Party have introduced, for this mess of potage, the Labour Party are prepared to destroy themselves, to pull themselves to pieces. They are doing it for a policy as insane and as ridiculous as this— against which we shall vote later tonight.

10.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) urged the House to consider that we were debating what he described as long-term prices and incomes policy. He concluded that there was some wish, perhaps even some decision, on the part of the Government to mount a statutory incomes policy as a permanent feature of our economic planning.
Let me say again what I have said from the Dispatch Box on at least three

occasions, what the Prime Minister has said and what my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has said—what is our simple intention towards the possibility of an extension of these powers. On my part, there is certainly no enthusiasm for extending prices and incomes policy with its statutory backing —I emphasise, with its statutory backing—after the end of 1969.
I certainly do not see a statutory prices and incomes policy as a way of bringing about a planned economy or a Socialist society. I certainly do not see it as a system which is in itself desirable. I see it simply as a necessity in the present situation.
I said to the House at the end of the Second Reading debate, and I say again this evening, that whilst the Government does and must reserve the right to operate whatever policies seem to be necessary today for the extension of the economic improvement that the country has already seen, and whilst it is conceivable that that improvement might necessitate additional items of prices and incomes policy, it is the wish and the hope of the Government that a statutory prices and incomes policy should not be a permanent feature and should not be an extended feature.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who 30 seconds ago cried "Keeping the door open", a minute ago cried" That is not the sort of thing you were saying a year ago ".

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): I cried the first time that that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman had been saying. A year ago, and two years ago, we heard Ministers keep saying that they did not intend to do it indefinitely, but we have had them doing it indefinitely.

Mr. Hattersley: Had the hon. Gentleman been here at the beginning of the debate he would have heard the hon. Member for Worthing say that what I said a moment ago was in absolute distinction to what my right hon. Friends said in 1966, 1967 and 1968, for the hon. Member for Worthing told the House that the Government's word—and I think I quote him verbatim—was broken time and time again.
As I understand it, the word he claimed was broken is the word, the promise, that


there should not be and would not be an extension of the statutory prices and incomes policy. If he would do the House the courtesy of looking at column 429 of the Official Report on 13th July, 1967, he will find that his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) went to some pains to point out to the House that my right hon. Friend the then First Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, had always avoided saying whether there would or would not need to be an extension of the prices and incomes policy. If he reads the next column he will see that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West goes on to say that no assurance was received from the Prime Minister either. Whatever I may have to say in criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is his habit to pay gratuitous compliments to his opponents. If he was saying, as he was, that both these right hon. Gentlemen had been scrupulous and careful not to give any firm promise, I hope the House will agree that they had been scrupulous and careful in their determination not to give any firm promise.
The hon. Member for Worthing went on to say that paragraph 4 of the White Paper specified that it was an obligation on the Government to obtain for its prices and incomes policy the maximum amount of agreement with industry. Of course that is right, and of course it has been done.
The criteria in the White Paper, which after all are the criteria we are discussing this evening, are identical to those which appeared in the White Paper Command 2639—identical in terms of incomes and in terms of prices. That was the original White Paper accepted in April, 1965, agreed with the C.B.I, and agreed with the T.U.C. If one goes on to extend that point, and to examine not only the criteria in the White Paper but the powers in the White Paper, let me put this to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly the T.U.C. want a prices and incomes policy; certainly the C.B.I, want a prices and incomes policy. Both want it to be statutory in part, although they each would choose different parts for the application of statutory powers. In so far as we have got a substantial measure of agreement on the criteria and on the necessity for some statutory powers, we have achieved with both sides of industry substantially greater agreement than

the Conservative Government achieved for their incomes policy.
We have not had from them yet whether they would have an incomes policy, but what is certain is that the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. believe there has to be some planning in these matters. We have not heard from the hon. Member for Worthing on this or on the other occasions when I have faced him across the Despatch Box whether he believes in prices and incomes policy or not, and if he does, what he thinks the criteria should be.
It is no use coming to the House and saying that these criteria are inadequate and do not deserve the support of industry when the hon. Gentleman himself is unwilling or unable to offer the House any alternative criteria which might deserve the total support which he demands.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was an absence of clarity in the policy. He referred to the 1966, 1967 and 1968 Acts. I suggest that, on reflection, he will agree that the White Paper as it stands is a simple guide both to the criteria in the policy and to the powers in the policy. The White Paper stipulates in paragraph 10 the intentions of the powers. It stipulates the powers which, when the White Paper was printed, we hoped to take by way of a new incomes Measure. A simple paragraph cannot give force to those powers. We believed that it was right that a simply worded White Paper should give a comprehensive account of the policy, and that is what it does. The complications of the 1966, 1967 and 1968 Acts do no more than give statutory force, through the normal Parliamentary processes, with all its details and difficulties, to what is set out simply and clearly in the White Paper.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Paragraph 34 (iv) states the circumstance of there being
… widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line with the level of remuneration for similar work and needs in the national interest to be improved.
That is clear and understandable. Paragraph 38, however, states:
The criterion justifying increases on grounds of comparability needs to be applied selectively, and must not be used to spread pay increases into areas of employment where the original justification does not apply.


Would my hon. Friend call that simple and clear? I do not understand it.

Mr. Hattersley:: I intend to deal with the criteria one by one. My hon. Friend will agree that the policy as set out in the White Paper is admirably clearer than any policy which was dependent on the examination of the Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the ordinary man in the street who wanted to understand the prices and incomes policy had to refer to three Acts of Parliament, and that is not so.
I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite know the origin of the estimate that a prices and incomes policy would reduce effective demand by 1 per cent. It was estimated that 1 per cent., or about £100 million, would be removed from effective demand. That estimate originally came from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) when questioned by me on Second Reading of what was then the last Prices and Incomes Bill. I asked him if he regarded the removal of
per cent. or 2 per cent. of purchasing power as negligible. Earlier in that debate the right hon. Gentleman had said that all that could be expected of the incomes policy criteria as laid down was a reduction in demand of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman regarded as the object of that Measure, then I regard it as the minimum object. I regard the maximum as something more positive, creative and permanent.
It was surprising to hear the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) ask, in effect, "What does it matter if £200 million is knocked off effective demand?" That shows how much the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the views of his hon. Friends. Do I gather—the hon. Gentleman appears to be nodding his head—that the hon. Member for Worthing agrees with me?

Mr. Higgins: No.

Mr. Hattersley: In any event, it is obvious that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is out of tune with the realities of the economic situation.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman really must not put words into my mouth.

Will he now answer my second point: are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Budget judgment, included a minimum figure for the effectiveness of the incomes policy of £200 million a year?

Mr. Hattersley: No. My right hon. Friend made very clear in his Budget what he regarded as the implications of the incomes policy, and it is clearly not possible to say whether he made an estimate as precise as that. But what I say is that the minimum defined for incomes policy was stipulated by his right hon. Friend, not mine. His minimum is very worth while achieving, and if we were ever through this policy to reduce effective demand by £100 million, let alone £200 million, it would be a substantial achievement, and would justify all the pain and sweat that goes into the creation of policy.

Mr. Sheldon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the maximum figure of half to one per cent., if it could be achieved from this incomes policy, could still be achieved through any kind of incomes policy where the Government take a view, and in which the ordinary processes of huffing and puffing would achieve this half to one per cent.?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is asking whether I believe a statutory policy to be necessary. The difficulty of allowing interventions, which I like to do on grounds of courtesy, is that I am asked to anticipate points that I intend to make later on. This point is central to all that I have to say.
The hon. Member for Worthing said that no allowance was made for changes in demand. That was his first criticism. Without examining in detail the wages criteria, would he look at paragraph 34(2) of the White Paper, which states that
… where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower … and a pay increase would be both necessary and effective for this purpose …
a wage increase would be permissible. That clearly could be done in cases of changes in demand.
Similarly, when the hon. Gentleman says that comparability as a criterion either exists or does not exist—and this is a point which answers my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. Heffer)—


I say to them both that cases are not as simple as that. There are occasions when comparability is the only possible criterion which can determine an appropriate wage level, particularly in the public sector, but there are cases that can be used just as excuses for maintaining the traditional differentials, wage structures and patterns we have always had. In those circumstances the Government would be unable, and unwilling, to allow that criterion to justify a wage increase within or above the normal.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked me about the lowest paid. He said that the Government had carefully never said how the lowest paid were defined, and asked what this amounted to. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said that the Government had described the lowest paid as the chief beneficiaries of the policy. I say to him that I have never made that claim, nor, to my knowledge, has my right hon. Friend or any other member of the Government. What we have claimed is that during, an admittedly stringent pay period, during a time when we expect there to be restraints which will hit wage and salary earners hard, we are attempting to insulate from this admittedly hard policy the lowest paid. That is very different from giving them a preferential position and describing them as the beneficiaries of the policy.

Mr. Park: If my hon. Friend is now saying that the lowest paid will not be the beneficiaries of the incomes policy he is certainly saying something very different from what has been implied on many occasions, and if the lowest paid are not to be the beneficiaries of the incomes policy, who are the beneficiaries to be?

Mr. Hattersley: The answer to that is that we all are when we live in a more prosperous and healthy economy. When I used that phrase before I was winding up on the Report stage and referring to wages councils. I used the exact phrase that the lowest paid would be insulated from the admittedly hard policy. That is the sum of what I claim. I do not claim more, and I do not believe that any of my hon. or right hon. Friends have tried to claim more.
Within the general umbrella of the lowest paid, the hon. Member for

Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked about equal pay for equal work. He asked, were we to say that women moving towards equal pay could obtain it only within the general boundary of a 3½ per cent. increase and therefore at the expense of other workers in an industry. In the short run during this phase of incomes policy, the answer is yes certainly. As we hope that on some occasions the general body of workers will make, within the 3½ per cent., special allowances for the lowest paid, we hope that some bodies of workers will make special allowances for equal pay. That must remain the criteria within the policy while this phase operates. I do not believe that even the most sanguine hon. Members opposite believe that equal pay will be achieved between now and December, 1969. My task tonight is to discuss the criteria which will apply for the next 18 months and during that period there is to be a 3½ per cent. ceiling.
The hon. Member for Worthing referred, as he always does, to the Long-bridge group of companies and the Order we once debated on that subject and the disputed area of productivity in that agreement. I have never accepted that there was a productivity agreement at Longbridge. What I assert is that the policy of the Government has encouraged rather than deterred productivity bargains. If increases are possible under productivity bargains and not under other agreements, there is bound to be an emphasis towards the former and away from the latter. All the evidence from settlements reported to my Department confirms that commercial companies, unions and employers' associations are thinking and acting in terms of productivity agreements.
This leads me inevitably to the local agreement. Nothing is new about the idea that increases obtained from local or plant agreements should be aggregated with national agreements in prices and incomes policy. For example, Cmd. Paper 3235, which dealt with policy after June, 1967, said that the criteria must apply to industry, company or plant bargains. It seems eminently reasonable that if we are asking for a 3½ per cent. ceiling it should not allow local negotiations to add 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. to that percentage.
As to the engineering agreement, I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member for Oswestry, knowing that the agreement is still being considered, will not expect me to make many detailed comments on how it should come out. He will know that most plant bargains, most local agreements concluded on top of and supplementary to an engineering national agreement are concerned with piece rates, payment for results and other things which are to do with performance and might well be considered as increases in productivity because they result in more pay for more work. Certainly when and after the national agreement has been concluded, the local agreement which will follow must be judged against the productivity criteria.

Mr. Biffen: Precisely because the negotiations are now under way, the view of the Government should be known on this highly critical point? Surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will realise that paragraph 32 says:
In considering increases settled at national level account must be taken of probable increases at local, company and plant level.
Is he telling the House that the Government cannot in their own mind assess how much of that 3½ per cent. criteria is likely to be taken up by subsequent local settlements which will follow the national engineering award, and that he is unwilling to disclose that information either to this House or to those engaged in the negotiations?

Mr. Hattersley: I am certainly not going to say now, using the hon. Gentleman's own words, arbitrarily what is the maximum figure that should be negotiated in national agreements, and it would not be in the interest of industrial relations that I should give such a figure. As a general principle, when those national negotiations are concluded, the 3½ per cent. ceiling must apply to them and any other across the board increases which are related to output and productivity negotiated locally.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing suggested, as has been suggested on many previous occasions, that somehow there is an internal conflict within the Government, perhaps an intellectual rather than a personal conflict, about the prices policy. Again, I think on reflection he will realise that the

Government's policy on prices is clearly set out and absolutely consistent. In paragraph 14 of the Instrument which we are discussing we say clearly and precisely that we anticipate that, as a result of devaluation and other Government measures, there will be price increases during the forthcoming year.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an estimate of the price increases which would flow from his Budget and from other factors. He is the only Chancellor of the Exchequer ever to make such a precise estimate, and no one on this side of the House is pretending that Government policy—taxation policy, the decision to devalue—will not mean an increase in prices. Of course it will. But to my right hon. Friend the fact that there is likely to be an increase in prices because of devaluation and other things is not an argument for letting unnecessary price increases go forward. Indeed, it is probably the strongest argument for making sure that unnecessary price increases are prevented. All my right hon. Friend has ever claimed he would do, or could do, is to subject many price increases to scrutiny, to make sure that those price increases which are unjustified, which are unnecessary, do not go forward at a time when there is admittedly a general price increase and at a time when there has to be some restraint in wages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said to the House that he chose to deal with the incomes aspect of the White Paper. I wish that he had chosen to deal with some of the other aspects as well, and for this reason. I suspect that he is in general agreement with the rest of the White Paper, and I suspect that when he hears the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing say, "What we object to is the wish to extend these criteria to every aspect of our economic life", he agrees with me that it is absolutely appropriate that these criteria and this level of restraint should be applied to prices, should be applied to municipal rents and should be applied to dividends. I hope he also agrees that it is not unreasonable that in those sectors there needs to be a general background of statutory power to make sure that the criteria are applied as justly and as universally as we intend.
Let me say two things about the use of powers. They are not new, but they are things which the hon. Gentleman opposite either do not hear or choose not to understand. I have said many times that the application of this policy needs the support of the unions. If the unions were to rejecten masse the incomes policy, the incomes policy could not work. The statutory powers could not work if scores of trade unions and thousands of trade unionists chose to reject them. Our belief is that most trade unions will accept and have accepted the criteria. They may not agree with the policy, and may not agree with the criteria in the policy, but they believe that they have an obligation to work within it. The statutory backing of the policy is intended not to coerce the majority of trade unions into compliance, but to assure them that if they are agreeing—I leave it open as to their enthusiasm and willingness—to operate the criteria of the policy, they will not have their position prejudiced by that small minority which persistently insists on flouting the policy. The statutory powers are intended for the uncooperative minority rather than the majority who all the evidence suggests have been co-operative and will continue to be.

An Hon. Member: What about the busmen?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Worthing accused the Government of being obsessed with wages. I believe, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, in a high wage economy, but we happen to believe in an economy in which high wages are earned. A high wage economy, yes; but one in which wages are related to production rather than one which is simply an instrument of inflation.
To talk as if there was some inherent hypocrisy in the policy, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) did, and that there is some opportunity for small employers and others to flout it is to misunderstand or simply not to know that, each day and each week, my right hon. Friend's Department receives inquiries and applications from small employers who are asking for guidance and assistance in implementing and organising the policy.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: No—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way. Only a few minutes remain to me.
Some of my hon. Friends asked me, "What about the busmen?" I was specifically asked a question about the busmen which, were it a fact, would be a grievous criticism of the policy. It was suggested that many busmen, anxious and willing to operate a productivity deal, were prevented by technical considerations in the shape of the sheer availability of one-man buses. In other words, the suggestion is that, despite their enthusiasm for the policy and their willingness to operate it, they are not allowed to do so because of these technical factors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The opportunities offered to the municipal busmen by my right hon. Friend are very clear and precise: a 10 shilling across the board increase, and an additional 10 shillings on their agreement in principle that they will work one-man buses when they become available. They do not have to do it. They have to agree to do it. When they actually do it, their increases in wages will be very substantial.

Mr. James Hamilton: This is a very important point. My hon. Friend has said now that they are being offered a 10 shilling increase across the board, and a 10 shilling productivity increase to which they have to agree in principle. Whether or not they can operate it is conjectural, because of the fact that we do not have one-man buses. Nevertheless, if the men agree in principle to work this, they will get £1. Is that it?

Mr. Hattersley: That is correct, and for those who agree not just in principle but in practice and do operate one-man buses, there are substantial increases available to them which will take them out of any conceivable category of lowest-paid workers.

Mr. James Tinn: Will my hon. Friend comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) about whether, in addition to the low wage aspect of the municipal busmen, they do not come under paragraph 34(ii), which


provides for a redistribution of resources and of manpower, since, manifestly, the low wages of busmen reflect—

Mr. William Whitelaw: rose in his place and claimed

to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, The Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 260.

Division No. 283.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pardoe, John


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peyton, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bessell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Heseltine, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Body, Richard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hornby, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Royle, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Ansus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, PAtrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Silvester, Frederick


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Cooper-Key Sir Neill
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Costain A. P.
Lane, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Crouch David
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McMaster, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Kn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Doughty Charles
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, G. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Emery, Peter
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Foster, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wright, Esmond


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nott, John
Mr. Humphrey Atki




NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Alldritt, Walter
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Allen, Scholefield
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maxwell, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Archer, Peter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong Ernest
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Ashley, Jack
Gregory, Arnold
Molloy, William


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, Roland


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Murray, Albert


Baxter, William
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Oakes, Gordon


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E.


Binns, John
Hannan, William
Orbach, Maurice


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'tn)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hattersley, Roy
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boston, Terence
Hazell, Bert
Paget, R. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Edward
Palmer Arthur


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Pannell, Rt. Hn Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bradley, Tom,
Hilton, W. S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pavitt, Laurence


Brooks, Edwin
Hooley, Frank
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Rt. Hn George (Belper)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hoy, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Randall, Harry


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Callaghan Rt. Hn. James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Richard, Ivor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K' ston-on-Hull W.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P 'c' as)


Concannon J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Robinson. W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crosland Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ross, Hn. William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dalyell Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon Robert


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies' Harold (Leek)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John (Reading)
Slater, Joseph


Dell, Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Snow, Julian


Dewar, Donald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lomas, Kenneth
Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunn, James A.
Lubbock, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G.R.


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Edelman, Maurice
McCann, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot, Niall
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Macdonald, A. H.
Tuck, Raphael


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael
Urwin, T. W


Ensor, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Waddington, David


Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, George


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins David (Consett)


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weitzman, David


Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Whitaker, Ben


Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David








White, Mrs. Eirene
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Woof, Robert


Whitlock, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wilkins, W. A.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Yates, Victor


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)



Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Joseph Harper and




Mr. Alan Fitch.

It being after one and half hours after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your protection of the rights of the House. It seems to me that by a subterfuge the Government have taken away the right of the House to reach a decision on a matter of some importance— whether the Prices and Incomes Order should remain in operation or should be withdrawn. If this can happen tonight it can happen on any subsequent Order debated in the House, which would mean that the Opposition's rights had almost been taken away. Therefore, would you accept a vote on the Motion we have just had before we proceed to further business?

Mr. Speaker: First of all—

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps when I have dealt with the point of order the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) will decide that he does not wish to pursue the point.
First, I cannot make any political comment. The last thing Mr. Speaker will do in the Chair is to express an opinion of the behaviour of either side of the House politically.
The position is that the Orders of the Day made provision for this Motion to be taken until half-past eleven. We have passed that time now. It is impossible to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Since the House has impliedly resolved that the matter has not been sufficiently debated, will you, Mr. Speaker, adjourn the debate under the Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order to which the hon. and learned Member refers does not bite on this occasion. We now come—

Mr. Edward Heath: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

submit to you that a point of some considerable importance is involved on which, if you cannot give us a decision, at least the Leader of the House can advise the House. What we were originally to discuss was a Prayer, and there has long been a tradition in the House that if the Opposition wished to put down a Prayer to an Order they could do so within the limited praying time. On this occasion the Government refused Her Majesty's Opposition this right. We acquiesced in this because we were assured that time would be given for a debate. When we accepted that arrangement we in no way believed that we should not be given an opportunity of reaching a decision on the matter at issue itself.
Surely the House is owed an explanation by the Leader of the House as to why Her Majesty's Opposition cannot have that right that we have had ever since the institution of Prayers. If the Leader of the House persists in the conduct of the Government tonight, it means that in future the Opposition can never accept a postponement of a debate on an Order in the form of a Prayer in order to accommodate the Government by having a debate in the time we have been given.
I must, therefore, give the Leader of the House notice that unless he can assure us that in future we shall have the opportunity of reaching a decision on the matter and unless he gives us this opportunity on the present Order on another occasion, we shall always have to decline to postpone the right to have a Prayer. We shall have to insist upon it.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in reply. We want to hear both sides.

Mr. Peart: There has been a debate in which the right hon. Gentleman has put his point. I should be only too pleased to discuss it with his colleagues through


the usual channels. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have further time, I think it is a perfectly sensible request, and I will certainly look at it.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING SUBSIDIES (INTEREST RATES)

11.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of interest) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time the next Motion:
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
which deals with the same point for Scotland.

Mr. MacColl: These two Orders— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacColl: This Motion comes up under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, and the Housing (Financial Provisions, etc.) (Scotland) Act, 1967, and the Orders are essential for the working of the subsidies scheme because they fix the rate of interest at which subsidy is to be calculated. Similar Orders were laid last year, and they were the first to be made under the new Act. The present Orders follow very much the same pattern. I shall venture to deal with the one for England and Wales, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Scotland, who is to reply to the debate, will deal with any points which arise under the Scottish Order.
The representative rate is related to the rates of interest paid in the financial year immediately preceding that in which the houses are completed. There are two reasons for this. First, most expenditure on a house is incurred in the year before it is completed. Secondly, local authorities need to know the representative rate for any financial year as early as possible in that year.
The rates are fixed after consultations with the appropriate bodies, and there are really three groups of house building authorities with whom we are concerned. The first group consists of local authorities. Their rate of interest is fixed after there has been a rather complicated calculation of weighted average on long and short-term borrowing. The figure is reached and finally agreed with the associations.
The second group consists of the housing associations, and last year my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Public Building and Works said that he would look at the case for having a separate rate of interest for housing associations. We have discussed that and looked at all the available material there is about borrowing rates for the housing associations. We are satisfied—and I think the housing associations themselves are satisfied—that their rates are very much in line with the local authority rates.
The new towns are financed in a completely different way. They are wholly financed by Government loans which carry interest at the Government's lending rate.
The two rates of interest for England are 707 per cent. for the local authorities, and 7·13 per cent. for the new towns. These compare with 6·52 and 6 per cent., respectively last year. The House would probably like to have some idea of how these work out. The position is that last year when the rate was 6·52 the average cost of building a house, that is including the site, on the whole cost of which subsidy is paid, was £3,800. The equivalent figures for this year are 7·07 per cent. for the rate of interest, and £3,900 for the average cost. That means that on those average figures the basic subsidy this year will be £108. That is the difference between the 7·07 per cent. and the 4 per cent.
As for the cost of the new subsidies under the Act as a whole, the original estimate for last year was £11 million, but the outturn was £12 million. The estimate for this year is £27·2 million, which is an increase of £15 million over the outturn for last year. The total cost of all subsidies falling on the Exchequer —the new and the old subsidies—last year was £94 million; this year it is £110 million.
The Scottish Order is based on the same general principles as that for England and Wales and is acceptable to the representative bodies consulted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As last year, the Scottish rates are lower than those for England and Wales. Some differences are to be expected, since the source and amount of borrowing are not necessarily the same—for example, Scottish local authorities have been able to borrow a higher percentage of their requirements from the P.W.L.B. at rates of interest lower than the market rates than have authorities in England and Wales. My hon. the Minister of State will answer any detailed Scottish points which may arise.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Government bring these draft Orders to the House in the form directed by the parent Act and we have no complaint about the form of the Orders or the necessity for bringing an Order in each year, as the Act directs. If I understand it correctly, the procedure under the Act and this Order is that local authorities apply to the Minister for subsidy approval for the houses and flats which they intend to erect during a period of time; they state the cost of the land and of the buildings; the Minister confirms that those houses and flats will rank for subsidy, and the local authorities add up the cost of all loan-approved houses built in any one year.
The local authorities then have to borrow money at current rates of interest in order to carry out that building. They then receive from the Exchequer a sum equal to the excess of interest so payable at those current rates over the amount of interest which would have been payable at the rate of 4 per cent., and the so-called current rate of interest is calculated and fixed annually by the Minister by an Order of the sort that we are now discussing. This is done after consultation with the recipient authorities or their representative bodies.
It is a very complicated calculation, which is discussed with those bodies, and it is not set out in the parent Act in any way. All that the Act says is that
The rate shall be such as appears to the Minister … to be representative of the rates of interest paid on loans raised (including any sums borrowed by way of temporary loan) by recipient authorities …

The Parliamentary Secretary takes the interest on the loans from various sources, averages them out and puts a weighting on the different types of loan. As I understand it, the interest rates taken for averaging out are those which apply to Public Works Loan Board mortgages; stock issues, negotiable bonds, mortgages on the open market, over-the-counter bonds and mortgages and, finally, temporary loans. I have rather stressed this calculation of interest because it is nowhere laid down in the Act. Although, by the consultations with the recipient authorities it is acceptable for this year, I would not have thought that either for those authorities or, certainly, for us on this side, this year's formula should be regarded as binding.
For example, the temporary loans are only taken as one-sixtieth of the requirements of the local authorities in house building. I cannot argue on the figures but my impression, through knowledge of some local authorities, is that a much greater amount than that of their house building capital is on temporary loan. We all know that interest rates over this year have been at rates as high as ten per cent., certainly from eight to ten per cent. If that proportion is wrong, or if it is wrong when we apply it in any future year, the rate of interest in the year will be too low and the local authorities will not get the subsidy which they should be getting under the Act.
The Order would fix the interest rates for 1968–69. It is an indictment of this Government's financial and economic policy to compare this Order with that which it replaces. We have had only one previous Order under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, but it set out three years' rates, because the Act was retrospective to 1965. For the year begining 1st April, 1965, the rate for all local authorities and housing associations was 6·19 per cent.; for 1966, it had risen to 6·35 per cent.; for 1967 it was 6·52 per cent.; and now, for 1968, it is up to 7·07 per cent., an increase of nearly one per cent. over those years, the rising interest rates being paid by local authorities.
For the development corporations and the New Towns Commission, the rate was 6 per cent. until this year, when it leaps to 7·13 per cent. There are only


these two categories in the Order—all local authorities and housing associations, and the development corporations and the New Towns Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it had been decided not to treat housing associations separately or to give them any different rate from that applying to local authorities generally. Again, I would not like to be bound by that as a precedent. It may be right this year— although I am a little doubtful—but it will not necessarily be right for every future year.
One sad aspect for the local authorities is that these interest rates—necessary, under the Act—are calculated on last year's figures, and I would have thought that the rate for actual borrowing today is much higher than the 707 per cent. in the Order. So, all through this year, local authorities will have to borrow at a much higher rate—I would have thought at eight to 8½ per cent.— and they will not be getting that full compensation. But that is according to the Act.
By increasing the rate, the Order will also, of course, increase the contribution from the taxpayer. We have heard by how much the total global subsidies are to be increased. The increase in the subsidies dealt with by the Order is from £12 million last year to £27·2 million this year. For all subsidies the increase is from £94 million last year to £110 million this year.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the amount of subsidy depends not only on the interest rate, or the margin between 4 per cent. and the specific interest rate, but also on the cost of the house. He mentioned the increase in the cost of building a house —from £3,800 last year to £3,900 this year. But over the period of three years during which the subsidy has been in operation, the increase has been about £20 in every £100, so that a £4,000 house when the subsidy was started would now cost £4,800. If these increases in prices were not so disastrous to so many people, they would be rather funny set against the Prime Minister's famous Stevenage speech, made in September, 1964, only six months before these housing subsidies started. He said,

We shall cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rate policy".
If we set that against the present Order we see how the Government have failed to carry out their promises made to the electorate in 1964.
One might think that an increased subsidy of this sort would relieve the ratepayers, but during recent years the increased subsidy has meant no relief whatever to the ratepayers. Four years ago the ratepayer contributed 6s. 8d. to every £1 of subsidy. Now he has to pay £1 for £1. No relief is given to the ratepayer by the increase in subsidies.
The main point which emerges is that before they are given approval for this increase in subsidy under the Order, the Government ought to give the House a firm assurance that the subsidy will be used to the best advantage and will be properly used for housing those who are in need. Is it true that there are so few local authorities requiring the payment of economic rents, tempered by rebate schemes, that the average council house rent throughout the country is no more than £2 a week? Is it true that only one council tenant in 10 pays even as much as 2s. in the £ of this earnings in rent? May I quote from this morning'sDaily Mirror which wrote:
If you live in a council house your rent on average will be £2 a week. It is kept at this artificially low level by the £140 million a year subsidy from rates and taxes,
—I presume that that was for Scotland, too—
despite the fact that 10 per cent. of council tenants and their wives jointly earn at least £30 a week.
If that is so, it seems to show that not all local authorities are using the subsidy properly and that the Government ought to make more certain that economic rents are charged for council houses, that councils have proper rebate schemes and that they are subsidising those who are in need of subsidy, not those who are not in need of subsidy. Unless that sort of assurance can be given to the House, an Order such as this, increasing subsidies, is not justified.

Mr. John Brewis: The present rates of interest which a local authority would have to pay to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board are approximately 8 per cent., slightly below or slightly above depending on how long the loan is asked for.


But in the case of local authority borrowing for spending on houses after 16th May this year in Scotland, their subsidy is to be calculated at the rate of 6·78 per cent., which is roughly 6| per cent. Therefore, they are having to borrow at about 1¼ per cent. more than they are actually getting back from the Government.
It seems to me, therefore, that instead of the rate of interest for housing subsidies being brought down to a notional 4 per cent. this year the effect is going to be that local authorities in fact will be paying 5¼ per cent. To this extent the Scottish Act has not carried out the intentions the Government put before us when the Bill was passing through the Scottish Committee.
The second point I should like to make concerns the different rate for England and Wales, where it is 7·07 per cent., and Scotland, where it is 6·78 per cent. There is a difference there of well over a quarter of a per cent., and that on a house costing round about £4,000 means that in Scotland something like £16 more will have to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers.
I should like the Minister of State to say how this has come about, why the Scottish rate of interest is so much lower and whether Scotland will get any compensation for this position.
My third point is that one of the snags of this system of financing housing is that it really does not pay local authorities to borrow at low rates of interest, because if the notional rate which is in the Order is higher, the local authorities in fact get bigger subsidies. If this is the case and the local authorities get back more in subsidy, it is still costing the Government more in paying out the subsidies. I should have thought a much better system was for local authorities to endeavour to arrange interest at the lowest rates they possibly could.
I want to ask the Minister of State a question in connection with new towns. I know he will be very pleased with the number of houses which were built by local authorities in Scotland last year. The figures were well up, and indeed we are all pleased that this was so, but certainly some of the other figures are very disappointing.
I should like to ask him whether this rate of interest, which is higher for the development corporations, has in some way curbed the building of houses in Scotland in the last year. I notice that one or two of the figures for overspill are particularly disappointing. They are way down on 1963, 1964 and 1965. Have the Government in some way put a curb on the building of houses for overspill because of the high rates of interest?
Another category is the new towns mentioned in the Order. I was not aware that the new town development corporations get their money directly from the Government, but it seems that they have been paying a higher rate of interest than local authorities, and I should like this explained. Has this also curbed the number of houses which are being built in the new towns?
One notices that the number of houses under construction are going down and down. Comparing, for example, 1967 with 1965, they are down from 4,907 to 3,178. Very much the same thing is true of housing associations. Can the Minister of State give an assurance that the Government, through their economic restraints, are not cutting down on these three very desirable forms of building in Scotland?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the subject of housing, and in debating the Order we have an opportunity to consider how present trends are affecting certain areas. I wish to comment on the effect that they are having on Sheffield.
There can be no doubt that the high rates of interest are playing havoc with many local authority housing accounts. This Order is based on the 1967 Act and the issue under discussion is non-controversial. Indeed, if the representative rate of interest is to be increased, this will be welcomed by all local authorities. I wish to raise a constituency matter and to deal with the experiences of the housing committee of the City Council of Sheffield.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It is not in order in discussing this general Order to discuss the housing policy of a particular recipient authority.

Mr. Osborn: I do not intend to discuss Sheffield's housing policy as such. Like other hon. Members who represent Sheffield constituencies, I wish to be in a position to advise the city council of the current position under various Statutes, including this Order.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the average subsidy per house is £108 and that the average building cost per local authority house has risen from £3,800 to £3,900. This is in contrast with the figures I have been given in respect of the position for Sheffield under the 1961 Act. There was an expensive sites subsidy under that Act; and had the level of that subsidy not altered, it has been calculated that Sheffield would have received an aggregate annual subsidy per dwelling under that Act of £63, comprised of a basic subsidy of £24, a special needs subsidy of £16 and a tall buildings expensive sites subsidy of £23. But by amending the basic subsidy, greater assistance would have been given to authorities with greater need. Under the 1967 Act this rose to £74. This is the contrast between the old method of subsidy and the new method.
This is of considerable interest to local authorities with slum clearance problems, and they consider that they are worse off, certainly under this Order than under the last Act, namely 1961 Act.
Sheffield has constructed 5,565 houses since the Act came into force on 25th November, 1965. It has a housing debt of about £92 million, of which about £20 million relates to new houses completed. A 4 per cent. interest rate on that total gives a figure of £800,000. If, under the Order, there is a rise to 7·07 per cent., the figure will be £1,414,000. I have discussed this matter with the chairman of my local housing committee and I trust that the Minister will correct these figures, perhaps by letter, if they are wrong.
It is interesting to note that Section 2(2) of the 1967 Act states:
… the amount of the subsidy shall be twice the amount by which the amount of such an instalment calculated at that rate exceeds what the amount of that instalment would have been if calculated at the rate of four per cent. per annum.
This is a very odd way of going about things, and to the layman it makes calculation difficult. As indicated the

Parliamentary Secretary nationally the subsidy for all local authorities has risen from £12 million last year to £27.2 million. All subsidies have gone up from £94 million to £110 million. This is to be welcomed and, presumably, allowing for subsidy from rates, the figure is £140 million as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It would be useful to hear how that figure is broken down between local authorities. In particular, I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would break down the figure to show the effect in Sheffield. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) sitting opposite, because he has been looking into these matters, as they affect Sheffield, with me.
Sheffield, like many other cities, has a slum clearance problem. This weekend, two issues have arisen. The tenants association is very much concerned about the subsidies provided by the Minister of Housing to the local authority, and the headline in theMorning Telegraph is:
Housing revenue books in chaos claim tenants.
There was a meeting over the weekend. This weekend also I spoke to the Conservative leader of the housing committee, and the headlines in this evening'sStar is:
Home building by city may have to stop. Sheffield may soon have to stop building houses unless it can get some satisfaction from the Minister of Housing and Local Government over interest rates and subsidies.
The occasion of this Order seems appropriate for making a plea.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware or has been told that a letter has been sent by the town clerk to Sheffield M.P.s asking for a meeting with the Minister of Housing. I forwarded details also on 18th June, and there has still been no reply. On 28th March a deputation from the Sheffield City Council asked for advice an balancing the housing account, but was unable to see the Minister because it was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. The Sheffield housing account is now in deficit, but the increased subsidy under the Order will be of advantage to Sheffield even if this subsidy is still too insignificant.
Following the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board we have been told that if the subsidy is not increased it will be necessary either to increase the charge on the rates—and already the ratepayer is making a pound for pound contribution—or it will be necessary to increase rents. The Prices and Incomes Board has referred to a 7s. 6d. increase and no more in any one year, but can I take it that if the housing subsidy from the Minister by one way or another is not enough this is an invitation by the Government to have a 7s. 6d. increase in rent each year? If this is not so, it means inevitably that local authority housing accounts will continue to run into deficit. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will raise Sheffield's particular circumstances with the Minister.
I am well aware that many other local authorities are faced with this same problem. Although the scope of the Order is limited because of the scope of the Act, it would be a very great pity if the subsidy was not in due course made larger. It is my hope that the Minister will later explain the position of Sheffield in particular, but the problem is not confined to the one city. The matter is urgent. Unless the increase in the subsidy is much larger, many local authorities will have to cut back on council housing.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I should like to put one or two points on the Scottish Order before the Minister of State, Scotland, replies to the debate. The Scottish grouping of bodies concerned and also the Scottish rates which have been determined as representative are different from those in the Order for England and Wales, but the principle on which the subsidy is applied is the same. I am very much aware of this as I think I am the only hon. Member in the House who was on both Committees, the Committee on the Scottish Bill and the Committee on the Bill in which the English subsidy system was provided for.
The representatives of the bodies concerned, local authorities and housing associations, have apparently agreed to the rates of interest which have been determined, but I wish to ask the Minister of State about the National Federation

of Housing Societies. Last year it expressed doubts about being included in the same group as local authorities. The Minister of State acknowledged this. I should be glad if tonight he will say whether the societies still have doubts about this or are satisfied to be included in local authorities, because presumably the term "housing associations" covers housing societies.
We note that the method of calculation has been accepted by the bodies concerned, but provided that it is to be reviewed from time to time by the Government. Can the Minister tell us the Government's view about the future of the present method? I have armed myself with a copy of the memorandum which was placed in the Library and have followed the calculations on which the present rates were arrived at, but I note that the local authorities do not want to be wedded for ever to this particular form of calculation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) raised an important point when he referred to the difference between the rates of interest prescribed as representative for England and Wales and those for Scotland, pointing out that higher rates had been adopted for England and Wales. When I saw this I assumed that it was because a greater proportion of loans in Scot-and had been obtained from the Public Works Loan Board and therefore at lower rates of interest than in England and Wales, but we need an assurance from the Minister of State tonight that these rates have been arrived at because there have been lower interest rates in Scotland arising from more use of the Public Works Loan Board or for some other reason.
Last year the Government stated that local authorities in Scotland preferred not to use the provision in the Scottish Bill for different groups of local authorities to be treated separately and different rates of interest to be determined for them depending upon the rates at which those different types of local authority had borrowed in the previous year. Last year the Minister informed us that local authorities in Scotland preferred to be treated together as one group. Is this still the position? In this Order they have been treated as one group. Do they still prefer that rather than being treated differently as they could be under the Bill?

12.28 a.m.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to try to argue on what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has said about the situation in Sheffield. He explained it fairly clearly. I assure the hon. Member that I was asked by some colleagues to conduct the correspondence with the Minister. I received a reply today in which he says that he is prepared to meet a deputation from the city council when he has considered and decided on the present new rent proposals of the city council. Until he has done so he considers that it is not possible for him to discuss the effect of the interest rates on these proposals.
I am concerned about the interpretation of the Order in relation to the situation in Sheffield. One would assume from reading the Order that the rate of interest for houses built in 1967–68 would have been 7·07 per cent., but when one turns to the Explanatory Note one finds that this appears not to be the case, and that through the operation of the subsidies the effective borrowing rate is 4 per cent. I find it more difficult to read that into the Order. I have hitherto been under the impression that the 4 per cent. rate effectively applied to new houses since before the Order, and that the difficulty has arisen in older houses which were not covered by the 4 per cent. arrangement.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain precisely how these permutations work out, so that the matter can be made clear to the local authorities and those interested. As I say, anyone reading the Order would not come to the conclusion which is suggested in the Explanatory Note, and I hope the Minister will clarify this.

12.32 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) for dealing with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). When the Minister has made a decision about the rent structure which is before him now at the request of the Sheffield City Coun-

cil he will then be able to receive the deputation that the hon. Member for Hallam asked about. I should not like to commend to him a detailed reading of the memorandum, but that is the only way in which he will be able to work out the calculation. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for even attempting to read and understand the calculation. Suffice it to say that we will not necessarily stick to that calculation next year. It is a method of arriving at a decision agreeable to ourselves and the local authorities, and it is subject to review. One of the best parts of the Act is the flexibility of these formulae.
May I say in response to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the rate for temporary borrowing fluctuates wildly, which is a point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). His first and third points seemed to answer themselves. This time last year, for example, it was below the rate for more permanent borrowings; at present it is above. In the former case authorities would prefer it to be ignored and in the latter case to be heavily weighted. I quite understand the position. We take the view that it is more a matter of swings and roundabouts, and this is the point the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway suggested in his third question to me. It is true that this year many borrowings will be above the rate for last year, but if interest rates fall next year the authorities will benefit from the higher rate for this year.

Mr. Graham Page: What an optimist.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must not heckle me like this. I am trying to answer the three questions which he put. I will not dwell for a moment on the assurances which he thought were necessary at the end, but I would commend to the electors of Sheffield a study of his speech.
I think we all recognise the importance of economic rents, and know the revolutionary rent structure propounded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby. It is certainly not the only part of the Conservative Party policy which we have heard. I would appreciate it if perhaps next week, if he is not speaking on some other party line, the hon. Member for


Crosby will tell us if it is the intention of the party opposite to underline the system of effectively bringing down the rate of borrowing to 4 per cent.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We are coming round to economic rents, and I will put not only the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) before the city council but both those from the Front Bench. I am glad to learn that there has been a letter from his Ministry to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) explaining the position.

Dr. Mabon: I am glad that the position in Sheffield has been somewhat resolved, and that the electors there will read the speeches which have been made tonight.
I turn, then, to the questions that I have been asked on one or two Scottish points. The hon. Member for Galloway asked about new towns. New towns in Scotland obtain funds from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and those in England from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, out of issues from the National Loans Fund. I quite agree that overspill completions have been lower than we had hoped. There were 2,863 in 1965, 2,373 in 1966 and 2,557 in 1967. But approvals have been going up substantially, from 1,896 in 1965 to 3,322 in 1967. I take the point that an overspill programme needs great preparation to gain full momentum, and I regret that there was no momentum in the programme when we came to office.
The Government wish to encourage overspill, and there is a special subsidy for it in the Bill. The new concept of out-county estates is of great importance also in this respect. As for the total figures of completions, bearing in mind that many people who are not technically involved in the overspill programme go to new towns, in 1964 they were 2,608, and in 1967 they were 3,941. Approvals were 3,301 in 1964 and 4,149 in 1967.

Those figures show the natural progression which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see.
As for housing societies, the Federation has accepted with some understandable reluctance the position as it is in the Order. It does not have complete information, and I am sure that it will want to return to the attack with Ministers, if the information that it gets shows that it has a case for such consideration. At the moment, it accepts that the rate for local authorities should apply also to its members, albeit reluctantly. However, the matter is not closed. It is open to the Federation to produce facts.
I was asked about the difference between the Scottish and English rates. The main reason for the Scottish local authority rate of 6·78 per cent. being lower than the comparable English rate of 707 per cent. lies in the difference between the borrowing patterns in the two countries. Mention has been made of the Public Works Loans Board, but it is worth recording that, in addition, Scottish authorities borrowed a larger proportion of their funds during the earlier part of the financial year when interest rates were low.
I do not think that there were any other matters raised in the debate. I am extremely glad that the House has received the Order in such a manner, and I hope that I have done justice to the questions asked of me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1968 [draft laid before the House, 10th July],approved.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move.
That the Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) (Scotland) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is quite simple. It is to increase to £170 million the limit of the aggregate amount of advances which may be made by the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund to the S.S.H.A. so that it can continue its housing operations.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) will recall that the statutory limit was increased to £145 million in the 1967 Act, with provision for a further increase to a maximum of £170 million. The total of advances made to the end of the financial year 1967–68 was £124 million. Since then advances of about £3·5 million have been made. Having been Under-Secretary of State in 1964, the hon. Member will readily understand that we have already got commitments against which no advances have yet been made of £10·6 million and projects which are on the point of approval add about £2·5 million, bringing the total to about £140·6 million. We are also planning by the end of September to add another 1,000 houses, which will bring us up to, if not a little over, the £145 million allowable under the Act. Bearing in mind that we must take approvals into account as well as actual advances made, it is thought likely that, by that time, we will have exhausted the limit. It was thought necessary, therefore, to put this Order before the House.
The overspill programme is going well, not just for Glasgow but for Scotland as a whole, as I indicated in the previous debate. Houses for industrial development are going even better.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. John Brewis: We all welcome the fine work which the S.S.H.A. is doing. Most of its building is for incoming industry, about two-thirds of which is going on the new towns and only about one-third outside. Virtually all its work is taking place in the central belt. As far as I can see,

there are only two small burghs in the whole of Scotland which are getting any contribution from the S.S.H.A. and only one county—Berwick, which is getting 10 houses.
Should not the S.S.H.A. build many more houses in other parts of Scotland? I have in mind, for example, Invergor-don, which we hope will soon become a centre of industry. Industry is going to Campbelltown and Dalbeattie in my constituency, but places outside the central belt are getting very little help. How does a local authority set about getting the help of the Association. It is desirable that the Association should come in and help, as it relieves the ratepayers of the cost of building houses.
The Minister of State mentioned 1,000 houses. Is this to do with Tweedbank, the Borders development? I suppose we do not know what will happen there for the moment, but if this is not approved by the county council this may well alter the plans. On the multi-storey question, is the hon. Gentleman sure that the constructions which the Association is erecting are thoroughly sound so that there is no risk of a disaster occurring of the type that occurred at Islington a few months ago?

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the Minister of State said, this is not a controversial issue on which we shall spend much time, but we want to take the opportunity of asking the Minister for answers to one or two points. When the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Bill, 1967, was passing through Committee, we discussed Clause 15, under which the Order is being made, at some length. As the Minister of State pointed out, it was foreseen that the total amount would be raised from £145 million to £170 million. The Minister made some prophecies which I am glad to say have come out almost right. On 1st December, 1966—I refer to column 287—the hon. Gentleman said that he expected the limit of £145 million to take us to March, 1968. We are now a little beyond that, but that has worked out reasonably according to the hon. Gentleman's prophecy. The hon. Gentleman also said that he expected that the increased amount of £170 would last for about 1½ to 2 years. Does this mean that there will have to be another Bill


in about 1½ years' time to cope with the situation then? Does the hon. Gentleman foresee the amount having to be increased further, as he clearly did in December, 1966?
When at that time we discussed at length what the S.S.H.A. was engaged in and was likely to be engaged in, the Minister said that the main problem then facing the Association was that of finding sites. Has this problem receded since then?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said, we agree in the House about the value of the work which the S.S.H.A. is doing, particularly for new and expanding industry, but there is a point of concern in the concentration of its work in certain parts of Central Scotland. In the latest Annual Report of the S.S.H.A. which is available, that is, the one which came out last September, it was said in the foreword that
areas in the Highlands, the Central Belt and the Borders will all benefit from this capital investment".
The Report seemed to foresee activity by the S.S.H.A. in the north of Scotland, in the Highlands as well as in the industrial areas.
From what I have discovered about approaches to the S.S.H.A. regarding the possibility of its building in the North of Scotland, it seems that the Association cannot embark on such projects unless a considerable number of houses or flats is to be built. Could the Minister comment on that? I do not know what the critical figure is, but it seems that, unless there are, say, 400 or so houses or flats to be built, the S.S.H.A. cannot sensibly or economically go into action somewhere in the North of Scotland far from the Central Belt. If the Minister could tell us something more definite about that, it would help us to see the problem in perspective, particularly in the light of the Association's declared wish to be able to operate in any part of Scotland.
We note with regret that costs of building have increased, not only interest rates but, with devaluation, the increased costs of materials and so on, together with growing transport costs. This, no doubt, is making the operations of the S.S.H.A. more expensive. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still aiming

at building 5,000 houses a year in 1970, which is the target which the Association and we have discussed in the past, or is that figure affected by the reductions in housing targets which were announced at the beginning of this year?

12.47 a.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for touching on a point which, in a way, answers a question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), namely, the expensiveness and, indeed, the impossibility of the Scottish Special Housing Association building in small packets. I should not like to give the figure off the cuff, but it is obvious that one cannot ask an Association of this kind to take heavy equipment up to build half a dozen or 20 houses. The number must be substantial.
That is why I was anxious that the local authorities in the North should be willing to join in consortia. For all kinds of reasons, some of which I fully understand, they did not come forward on that line, although there are earnest attempts still being made, based on Aberdeen and Arbroath, to try to get some kind of consortium into being. The formation of consortia is valuable not only for the convenience of the S.S.H.A. but also for the convenience of the large builders, many of whom operate in the Central Belt and will stay there so long as there are no large programmes in the North.
The small builders are coping reasonably well, but they certainly could not carry out a large programme such as, for example, at Invergordon, with the kind of infrastructure, as it is called, in roads, services and the rest as foreseen in the Alness structure plan described in the Moray Firth Report which the Jack Holmes Group published recently. If that kind of project were to be carried out in the future, it would have to involve the S.S.H.A. as well as other contractors.
I take the point about the change in the character of the S.S.H.A. It has moved from being a social ambulance unit helping the ratepayers to being a body servicing overspill and economic expansion. But there are severe difficulties about sites.
We have often been chastised over the S.S.H.A.'s leaving Glasgow, but in 1962


it built no houses in Glasgow. In 1963 it built 392, and that figure has steadily risen to 1,359 in 1966 and 1,156 in 1967. It must be obvious to anyone who knows Glasgow that the number of houses the S.S.H.A. can build in Glasgow is limited by the acute shortage of sites, which will create a very difficult situation in 1970. That is why Erskine, the fourteenth amendment to the Renfrew Development Plan, was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some time ago, after the public inquiry. It will give us about 6,000 houses in the public sector to be built outside the city in that one out-county estate.

Mr. G. Campbell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about building away from the Central Belt. He talked about penny packets of 10 or 20 houses. From what I have heard it seems that even if there is a project to build 100 or 150 houses in the North-West of Scotland that is still not enough to be worth while. But if there is a major development at Inver-gordon, as many of us hope, would not there then be definitely a case for a sizeable building programme which would be worth while for the S.S.H.A. to undertake?

Dr. Mabon: The S.S.H.A. is building in Kelso and one or two other small places. It often does so through agents; although the houses are S.S.H.A. houses they are built by local contractors or agents who may be building nearby.
Erskine is a case where we have a successful development in preparation for 1970. It takes a great deal of time in planning and site preparation and so on before one starts to erect the first house. In the case of Darnick we are held up by the negotiations prior to the compulsory purchase order which may prove to be necessary. I am not in a position to comment on that. That has already cost us 15 months.
The 1,000 houses to which I have referred are half last year's figure, and one-fifth the figure the hon. Gentleman mentioned as a target. Those 1,000 houses for economic expansion comprise about three-quarters, if not slightly more, of the total programme. That is the measure of the emphasis on economic expansion. This emphasis will inevitably lead to a decreasing number for overspill and general needs.
A point was raised about building standards. The Scottish Local Authorities' Special Housing Group has engaged in detailed technical consultations not only about standardisation of components but about building standards, and information is being pooled. The disaster in London, which we all deeply regret, has lessons for others besides the English authorities and builders. The S.S.H.A., as a pioneer of good building in Scotland, will learn these lessons.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the target of 5,000 a year unchanged? If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us now perhaps there is some way of informing us later.

Dr. Mabon: I am hopeful that the S.S.H.A. will get very close to 5,000, but there are reasons why it may not —and Tweedbank is a good example. We did not think that Invergordon was coming along. If it does, it is a bonus which might offset that. I cannot say anything about that tonight. I would hope that we should get over 4,000 at any rate in 1970.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Scottish Special Housing Association (Limits of Advances) (Scotland) Order 1968. a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Rural District of Pock-lington [copy laid before the House, 17th July],approved.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on 19th July, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish that the undertaking given by the Minister of State to Standing Committee G about a full and proper discussion on Third Reading should be honoured.

Mr. Speaker: Objection taken.

Debate further adjourned till this day.

Orders of the Day — THEFT BILL [Lords]

Consideration, as amended, deferred till this day.

Orders of the Day — BROCKHILL REMAND CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

12.55 a.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I do not on principle ask for an Adjournment debate lightly. The reason I asked for this one is that a large group of important and knowledgeable bodies most closely concerned with the problems of girls and women remanded in custody in the Midlands have expressed to me their great and continuing anxiety on the closure of Brock-hill Remand Centre to females.
The centre caters mainly for young male prisoners, but because four years of experience showed all the officials involved how time-consuming, frustrating and expensive it was to travel up to Manchester or down to London with every woman who was remanded in the Birmingham area a special wing at Brock-hill was opened in May, 1965. At the end of June this year, in spite of many representations to the Home Office, it was closed.
To say that this has very greatly inconvenienced and very greatly infuriated all concerned is putting it mildly. The first point is the hardship which this causes to defendants through the many hours of travelling that they must now undertake going between Birmingham and Holloway, where I understand most of them will now go.
Under the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, courts are encouraged to remand on bail where possible for a medical report. Those remanded in custody will, therefore, be the more disturbed, distressed and possibly sensitive individuals, and many of them are first offenders. I question—and I know that the magistrates who are so closely concerned with this also question—the advisability of sending them to Holloway as a good place for them to be cared for on remand.
It is not only a question of the travelling. When they are placed so far away

from their homes it is not possible for their parents or their husbands to visit them. I give two examples of the difficulty. They happened last week.
The first case concerns two women from Nuneaton who were remanded for trial, one aged 30 and the other 31. One had a sick son, and the other four young children. Both women begged to be allowed to stay near Birmingham, but both were sent to Holloway. The first was not and is not able to get news about her son from her husband because he cannot make the journey easily. The second, whose four children are being cared for by various officials, does not get the visits she would have had had she been at Brockhill from the officials to tell her how the children are. It may be said that the women should have thought of their offspring before committing whatever crime landed them in this position, but I cannot believe that the Home Office would take such an inhumane attitude, and in any case it is not the fault of the dependants, who also suffer when their mothers are sent so far away.
The second case concerns a 19-years-old girl charged with murder. The murder happened in April. Ever since then she has been in custody, and until Brockhill closed she was there. The case came up last week. It was a very distressing case. She stabbed her husband, and he died of the wounds some days later. She had had a horrifying time. The court found that she had done the crime purely in self-defence, and she was acquitted. But after all this period in custody she had to go through this tremendous emotional ordeal of a court case and travel every night and every morn-to and from Shrewsbury, where she was sent—a round trip of 86 miles. She went to the old prison for women at Shrewsbury where she was allocated a suite of rooms, and it was necessary to provide a night officer, a day officer, and a nurse to look after her. In addition, an escorting officer had to be with her on her journeys to and from Shrewsbury. What this travelling party cost the taxpayer in fares I do not know, but what a loss of time for these officers, and how frustrating it must have been for them.
Every time anyone goes to Holloway from Birmingham, escorts must go with them. This is a tremendous waste of


public money. Their lawyers, too, must travel to see them if they wish to do so. One might say that this will not cost the taxpayer anything, but it will if the lawyers are retained on a legal aid basis, and in any case it wastes the time of experts.
The judge at this murder trial had some very harsh things to say about the closure of Brockhill. He also asked what would happen in the winter when there was fog and bad weather? He wanted to know how women would get to the courts on time for the cases to start, and how counsel could talk to their clients and get to them to discuss certain aspects of their cases. The counsel involved said that he would also like to draw the judge's attention to the fact that in future defendants would have to get up at six or seven o'clock to get to the courts on time. That deals with the question of inconvenience to defendants, their escorts, and the officers involved.
Next, there is the difficulty about preparing reports. Probation officers in London will have to prepare and send reports back to Birmingham even though the defendant may be quite well known to the local probation officer, whose job of writing a report on the person concerned is half done before she starts.
We must consider, too, the question of after-care. Personal contact with the officer concerned is very important.
Following the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, under Section 66, Brockhill was designated a place of safety in April last, a place where the violent, uncontrollable types go—the sort of person who cannot be put in a hospital, a children's home, or an ordinary remand home. It is a place to which a girl who causes a lot of difficulty can be sent. I am assured that, in the short time that Brockhill was used as a place of safety for women there was a marked success in dealing with the small numbers of women who went there. Only last Friday a magistrate told me of a girl who would have gone to Brockhill but who, because that was not possible, caused immense trouble. She wrecked the place to which she was sent, and she has since absconded.
Early in 1967 the first three appointments of consultant forensic psychi-

atrists were made—one in Durham, one in Leeds, and the third in Birmingham. This imaginative step introduced a new aspect into the problem of the management of mental disorders in offenders. This was done as a result of a report by a working party on the prison medical service in, I think, 1964.
The Birmingham consultant was doing extremely valuable and important work at Brockhill in improving the level of assessment, diagnosis, management and treatment of those in custody there. There will now be no consultant working with these women. It is true that only a very small number of women had this advantage, but that is no reason for not mourning the fact that none of them now has that advantage.
As I understand it, the Home Office says that Brockhill can no longer be used for women and girls because of the shortage of nurses. The Statute says that there should be two state registered nurses at Brockhill, and it is said that it is not possible to find these women, but there are three doctors available, and there is a staff of very experienced prison officers. If, therefore, a woman was sick, or was about to be confined, she could be sent to hospital. She would not stay at Brockhill. I understand that one reason why it has not been possible to recruit these nurses is the distance of Brockhill from Birmingham, but the main reason is that women are bored to tears because they have nothing to do there.

Mr. James Dance: It may be a long way from Birmingham, but it is equidistant from Bromsgrove and Redditch. It is very easy to get these nurses to and fro.

Mrs. Knight: I am delighted to hear this. I have gone into this very carefully, and I take my hon. Friend's point.
I recognise that women who are disturbed are liable to do themselves harm when in a remand home. The staff of Brockhill is very anxious that this home should be kept open to women in their care. These are the very people who take responsibility. Boys in Brockhill are catered for quite adequately under the present arrangement of doctors and prison officers. They do not have any nurses, and nobody seems to worry about that.
Only a small number of women get themselves into trouble in this way—it is true that my sex is a great deal more law-abiding than yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but this does not seem to be a good reason for making this small number of women accept unnecessary hazards and difficulties.
I spoke earlier of the number of people who are concerned about this. There are the police, the probation service, the Magistrates' Association, the Birmingham City Council, the doctors involved with the prisoners, the Birmingham Law Society, the National Council of Women, the Chairman of Worcestershire Quarter Sessions, the Chairman of the Visiting Committee of Brockhill—all of whom have been in touch with me to stress how anxious they are about the closing of Brockhill to women and girls. These are not a bunch of ignoramuses; they know what they are talking about.
The ideal thing would be for the two nurses to be found, so that Brockhill did not have to close, but these people have been weighing up the difficulties of having the women there with no resident S.R.N.s and the enormous difficulties that would flow from the closure of Brockhill, and on doing this they are further asking stridently that the Home Office should consider weighing up these two courses also, because they believe that if it did so it might, even at this late hour, reverse its decision on Brockhill.

1.7 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The decision to close the Women's and Girls' Wing at Brockhill Remand Centre has understandably caused deep concern in the Midlands, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight)—

Mr. Dance: On a point of order. As this centre is in my constituency cannot I say a few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member will appreciate that the usual custom of the House is for the Minister to be called when he rises, especially as, on an Adjournment debate, the time is limited. After the hon. Member who has the Adjournment has spoken it is reasonable to give the Minister the opportunity of replying.

Mr. Dance: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend spoke very briefly because she knew that this remand home was in my constituency and was going to give me time to say a few words. With due respect, it is a little much to call the Minister to reply before I have had a word to say, when this home is in my constituency.

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order. I believe that I am correct in saying that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has not made application for his name to be considered for an Adjournment debate on this matter. I have no objection—it is entirely in your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to the hon. Member's being called, but I would point out that a number of points have been made by the hon. Lady, in correspondence, and in Written and Oral Questions in the House, previously to this. I have therefore many detailed points to make, which will cover every minute of time available if I am allowed to proceed at this stage.

Mr. Dance: Disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is addressing those remarks to the Chair, but, if so, he must withdraw them.

Mr. Dance: Of course, I do not mean to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do think that the Minister is treating my contsituency in a disgraceful way in not allowing me to say one word about this remand centre, which is in my constituency, and that subject to which my hon. Friend has raised so admirably. I would have said only a very few words, and the way that the Under-Secretary is treating me and my constituents is quite disgraceful.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the House appreciates that this is not in my discretion, and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have exercised your discretion in calling me. If the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) felt so strongly about the rights and welfare of his constituents in this matter, he could a (least have applied for an Adjournment debate.
My right hon. Friend shares the concern which has been expressed tonight


and in letters from individuals and organisations in the Midlands since the closure decision became known. It is, of course, highly regrettable that this wing of a purpose-built establishment, providing first-rate accommodation and medical facilities, should have had to close. Hon. Members will need no assurance from me that the decision was taken only after every endeavour had been made to keep it adequately staffed and every possible alternative had been examined. The investment in buildings and equipment will not be wasted, because the wing has been taken over to provide increased accommodation for the boys at Brockhill remand centre, but it is sad, nevertheless, to have to give up remand places for women and girls in the Midlands which we can ill afford to lose. The main factor—

Mr. Dance: . On a point of order. How is a Member able to raise a point affecting his own constituency in a debate like this? Of course I did not put down my name for an Adjournment debate when I knew that my hon. Friend had done so. Why am I completely stifled and unable to say one word on behalf of my constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but I am sure that he will equally understand the procedure on these Adjournment debates. Time is very limited and the opportunity of raising a matter on the Adjournment is determined by Ballot. When questions are raised, whether affecting the hon. Member's constituency or not, it has always been the custom of the House that the Minister should have adequate time to reply. If the Minister rises, the Chair is bound to call him to answer the case which has been made.

Mr. Dance: Further to that point of order. I spoke to my hon. Friend and we agreed that she would be reasonable in the time she took, and she was extremely reasonable. Surely a Member speaking on behalf of his constituency— and this remand home is in my constituency—should have been allowed a few minutes to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can say is that it is a pity that this was not

arranged with the Minister before the debate began.

Mr. Morgan: The main factor in the decision to close the wing was the intractable problem created by Brockhill's isolated position, which prevented the recruitment and retention of adequate nursing staff, and the choice was between keeping open the wind with inadequate nursing provision and making alternative arrangements which, while they might have involved some inconvenience for those concerned, would nevertheless ensure that there was proper care at all times for the women and girls on remand. As the Home Secretary said in the House on 4th July, our first concern had to be the proper care of these women and girls. In view of this and of our inability to retain the necessary nursing staff, there was no alternative but to close the wing.
It may be helpful if I describe the background to the closure. Brockhill was opened in May, 1965, to serve the Midlands. That was as the result of a decision made by the then Home Secretary, Mr. R. A. Butler, in 1961. Brockhill had accommodation for up to 30 women and girls in the special wing provided. The choice of the Brockhill site in 1961 was dictated by the urgent need to provide a remand centre in the Midlands, and, in view of the difficulties of finding sites for prison establishments, the decision to use a site already in the possession of the Prison Commissioners, in the grounds of Hewell Grange borstal, was clearly understandable. With hindsight it may be thought that difficulties might have been foreseen in staffing a centre, holding women and girls who have special needs, 15 miles from Birmingham and Worcester and with inadequate public transport to the nearest towns of Bromsgrove and Redditch, each three miles away. But at the time the decision was taken, Hewell Grange borstal had experienced no difficulty in staffing its matron posts and the recruitment problem at Brockhill has derived from developments which have occurred throughout the country since 1961, in particular the rapid turnover in the employment of women and a widening range of employment opportunities for older married women.
At virtually no time during the period the women's and girls' wing at Brockhill was open was it possible to maintain


the full nursing establishment of three state registered nurses and one auxiliary. In December, 1965, there were one senior sister and two part-time auxiliaries in post. A year later there was only one sister and one auxiliary in post—and that for a total of 848 receptions in 1966 and 964 receptions in 1967. To make good the deficiency, qualified staff were provided from other prison service establishments on short-term detachment, with resultant difficulties for them. Clearly this was a position which could not be accepted as a permanent arrangement. In all, seven nursing staff resigned from the prison nursing service while in post at Brockhill.
It was finally decided by my right hon. Friend in April this year that the wing should be closed at the end of May. There has been criticism of the fact that this decision was taken without advance consultation with those concerned, but the Visiting Committee was informed at the earliest opportunity, as is our practice, and before any public announcement was made. Since three years' experience in this case had proved conclusively that Brockhill's isolated position prevented the maintenance of nursing staff to the required level, there would have been little purpose to be served in discussing in advance with those affected the decision to close the wing. However, my noble Friend, Lord Stonham received a deputation on 21st May following representations against the decision by the Visiting Committee, supported by magistrates and others affected in the West Midlands, and he agreed to postpone the closure until the end of June so that the Visiting Committee might present a resolution, as they had given notice of doing, at the annual conference of Visiting Committees and Boards of Visitors on 12th June.

Mr. Dance: This is disgraceful.

Mr. Morgan: We also considered most carefully a number of representations and suggestions from organisations and individuals in the Midlands area, but there could be no question of reversing the decision to close the wing in the absence of a practicable alternative. Indeed, it was only with difficulty that we were able to maintain nursing staff throughout June and then only at a level which fell short of that required by the medical advisers.

Mr. Dance: On a point of order. This is complete nonsense. We have produced answers to all this. In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I do not know whether I can raise the subject again on the Adjournment, but I should certainly like to do so, because the Minister's answer is making no sense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will understand that that is not strictly a point of order. I have no doubt that his point will have been noted.

Mr. Morgan: I should like to turn for a moment to some of the suggestions which have been made in correspondence with Ministers and in Questions in the House. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove in a Question on 14th June suggested that women and girls on remand from the Midlands should be accommodated in the former women's wing of Winson Green Prison, Birmingham, as was the practice until 1961. It was found on investigation that the accommodation at Winson Green had already been converted for other use and that, quite apart from the question of the cost of re-conversion, it could be made available again for remand purposes only at the expense of adding to the already serious overcrowding in the male cell accommodation at the prison.
It was also suggested that the Home Office had been unnecessarily rigid in insisting on a full nursing complement at Brockhill in view of the availability of the medical officer in the remand centre and of nearby National Health Service hospital facilities.
It is quite true that Brockhill was well served as regards cover by a medical officer and support from National Health Service hospitals which could have taken women and girls suffering from acute physical illnesses. But of the comparatively few women and girls remanded in custody a very high proportion— and this was a point not made by the hon. Lady—are mentally or emotionally disturbed, and many of them are remanded in custody specifically for observation.

Mrs. Knight: I did make this point. I said that these are disturbed, distressed and sensitive individuals. I made this very point.

Mr. Morgan: I am happy to correct myself on that point. The purpose quite often of the observation is that reports of their mental condition may be given to the courts.
Since such women and girls might be received at any hour of the day or night, and since crises might equally arise at any hour of the day or night in the condition of those already in custody, the health and indeed the safety of the inmates require that constant trained nursing supervision should be available.
It has been known for women and girls to do serious harm to themselves or their fellows, and it is not without significance that on some nine occasions seriously disturbed women and girls had to be removed from Brockhill to Holloway or Risley to enable them to receive the necessary care.

Mr. Dance: Rubbish.

Mr. Morgan: I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect the House, and indeed myself, from the constantly frustrating interjections of the hon. Member.

Mr. Dance: It is because you are not telling the truth.

Mr. Morgan: I do not know whether the hon. Member's attitude or conduct is anything to do with the hour of the night, but I am sure the House would wish him to behave in a different way.
It has also been suggested that an additional deterrent to recruitment at Brockhill was the situation of the hostel for nursing staff one mile from the centre itself and reached by a lonely road through the borstal grounds, and that the provision of transport between the hostel and the centre might have helped to retain nursing staff. The question of providing such transport was considered, as was the possibility of using living accommodation for nurses nearer to the centre, but even if this had been possible it would have done nothing to solve the larger problem for nursing staff of getting to neighbouring towns in their free time.
Following the closure of Brockhill, revised arrangements have been made for women and girls remanded by courts in the Midlands. Those committed by courts in Radnor, Worcestershire and North Herefordshire now go to Puckle-church, near Bristol. Those from Mont-

gomery, Shropshire, Staffordshire and South Derbyshire go to Risley, near Manchester, and those from the east and south Midlands to Holloway where there is now a separate remand centre for girls under 21. It has also been possible to arrange for overnight stay accommodation at Shrewsbury prison for women and girls, with their escorts, who may have to appear in court on consecutive days. This will have the effect of reducing the travelling involved, and we are urgently examining the possibility of making similar arrangements elsewhere in the general area.
It has been represented to us very strongly by magistrates and lawyers that the new arrangements will greatly increase the burden of travelling for prisoners and make it difficult for them to remain in contact with relatives and legal representatives. I would not wish to minimise the problems that undoubtedly will arise in some cases, but although travelling distances will sometimes be greater under the new arrangements, in many cases, particularly where reliance has to be placed on public transport, communications will be easier than they were with Brockhill.
Finally a word about the future. Although there are no immediate plans to provide alternative remand centre accommodation in the Midlands, the possibility of providing a remand centre for women and girls in the Midlands will be kept under review. For the time being we want to see how the new arrangements work out, but we shall watch the effect of the closure closely and the trend in the number of girls remanded in custody. If an addition to the number of women's and girls' remand centres appears to be justified, priority will be given to the Midlands.
I ask the House to accept that the decision was taken, reluctantly, in the full knowledge of its effects and after every effort failed to remedy the problem.

Mr. Dance: Nonsense.

Mr. Morgan: This is, after all, a balance between the disadvantages now suffered and the very grave danger that would inevitably ensue were the position not to be corrected in this way.

Mr. Dance: Why will not the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morgan: Indeed, if any woman had been imperilled or if a death had occurred, I am sure that the hon. Lady —and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, had he brought himself to do this—would have applied with every fervour for an Adjournment debate on that very question and the failure of the Home Office, as would then have been the case, to take proper action in that connection, since the responsibility for the health and

safety of women and girls in custody falls squarely on the—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.